“What I wanted to do was…” Discrepancies Between College Women’s Desired and Reported Responses to Gender Prejudice

Abstract

When experiencing gender prejudice, college women engage in a dynamic decision making process about whether and how to respond. We examined the discrepancy between how college women wanted to respond and how they actually responded to gender prejudice events and explored their reasons for not using a desired response. In this study, 81 college women from the Western United States responded to a qualitative online daily diary about gender prejudice. In 34% (N=265) of the events, the women reported there was a discrepancy between what they wanted to do and how they actually reacted, with the most common discrepancy being a desire to utilize a confrontational response (91%, N=242). Over the two week period, women reported significantly more events during which they considered the use of a confrontational response (N=242) than they actually used one (N=199). Women's reported reasons for not using their desired response included: not being cost effective (25%), concern about social norms (37%), setting limitations (19%), personality characteristics (9%) and not being bothered enough by the event (10%). We also found that when women considered using a confrontational response but decided not to, they reported using all other response types instead. In these cases, women who did nothing during the event reported lower levels of distress during the event than women who used a psychological response or a different confrontational response. Implications and future research directions are discussed.

Gender, Race, and College Major: Do They Predict Modern Racism?

“…For example, in the United States, 2008 presidential campaign in the United States had the potential to have two unknown possibilities: a White female or a Black male for the presidential nomination. Apparently, the less risky unknown was to nominate a Black male as opposed to a White female (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009;Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 2011;Garcia-Retamero & Lόpez-Zafra, 2006;Lehman, 2012;Leppel, 2001;Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, Wong, Marshall, & McKenzie, 2015;Stefurak, Taylor, & Mehta, 2010). ISSN 2329-9150 2016 …”

“…Recent research has established that STEM academic programs have traditionally shown discrimination and prejudice toward female students (Berryman-Fink, 2006;Brinkman & Rickard, 2009;Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 2011;Deemer, Smith, Carroll, & Carpenter, 2014;Garcia-Retamero & Lόpez-Zafra, 2006;Lehman, 2012;Leppel, 2001;Levin, Van Laar, & Sidnaius, 2003;Nadal, Davidoff, Davis, Wong, Marshall, & McKenzie, 2015;Rice, Lopez, Richardson, & Stinson, 2013). One such academic discipline, business, traditionally over-represents White males.…”

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

“…Similarly, Swim and Hyers () found that only 16% of female participants verbally confronted a confederate who made sexist remarks, even though 75% of the women reported perceiving him as sexist (see also Hyers, ). Research by Brinkman, Garcia, and Rickard (), in which women were asked to keep a record of their experiences with sexism over a 2‐week period, found that women reported significantly more events during which they considered using confrontation than they actually used.…”

“…In addition, the decision to confront may depend on personality characteristics including the belief that people can change (Rattan & Dweck, 2010), possessing an optimistic outlook on life and belief that there are more benefits than costs to confronting sexism (Kaiser & Miller, 2004; see also Wellman, Czopp, & Geers, 2009), communal relationship orientation (Gervais et al, 2010), commitment to fighting sexism (Swim & Hyers, 1999), and cultural factors (Lee, Soto, Swim, & Bernstein, 2012). Thus, confrontation can be motivated or inhibited by a variety of factors (see also Brinkman et al, 2011), including the anticipated costs.…”

Everyday Exposure to Benevolent Sexism and Condom Use Among College Women

“…Typically, women perceive hostile sexism negatively, and as a result of being the target of such unfair treatment, experience anger, distress, and physiological arousal and are more likely to engage in collective action on behalf of women (e.g., Becker and Wright 2011;Brinkman, Garcia, and Rickard 2011;Townsend et al 2011). Contrary to these responses, exposure to benevolent sexism instead often leads women to react relatively more positively and engage in stereotypically feminine behaviors unwittingly.…”