Following Prejudiced Behavior, Confrontation Restores Local Anti-Bias Social Norms.

Does confronting, or calling out prejudiced statements or behaviors, signal anti-bias norms? The current studies (N = 1,308) examined this question by assessing observers' perceptions of descriptive and injunctive anti-bias local norms after a prejudiced comment was confronted. Studies 1 and 2 revealed a restorative function of confrontation: Confrontation of bias expressed toward Mexican people strengthened non-Mexican participants' perceptions of descriptive anti-bias local norms compared to leaving bias unconfronted and restored the perception of injunctive anti-bias local norms to baseline level (i.e., when no bias had occurred). Study 3 demonstrated that the norm-signaling function of confrontation is applicable to anti-Black bias among both Black and White participants. Moreover, observing confrontation of anti-Black bias boosted participants' sense that their identity would be safe in the environment, mediated by their perceptions of anti-bias descriptive and injunctive norms. Together, these findings indicate that confrontation effectively transforms norms in the face of bias.

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

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 other-directed 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. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Intergroup boundaries and attitudes: the power of a single potent link.

Many prejudice reduction strategies involve linking the self to outgroup members. We tested the novel question of whether establishing a potent link with a single outgroup member can reduce explicit and implicit prejudice toward the outgroup as a whole. White participants completed a mock adoption procedure where they "adopted" a baby from another country. Three experiments showed that this single link fostered perceived overlap between the self and the ethnic outgroup. This overlap mediated the effect of the adoption manipulation on explicit prejudice, which was significantly reduced. Whereas the single link was insufficient to reduce implicit prejudice significantly when the self-outgroup member link was not practiced, repeatedly practicing this connection reduced prejudice significantly in comparison with a control group that had no connection to the outgroup member. Furthermore, unlike explicit attitudes, this effect was direct.

Standing up for a change: reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation.

Three experiments examined the effectiveness of interpersonal confrontations as a means for decreasing stereotypic responding. After making stereotypic inferences about Black individuals, participants were confronted and reactions were measured across various intrapersonal and interpersonal response domains. Confrontations varied in level of hostility (Experiment 1) and whether they were expressed by a Black or White person (Experiment 2). Results indicate that although confrontations (and particularly hostile ones) elicited negative emotions and evaluations toward the confronter, participants also experienced negative self-directed affect. Furthermore, regardless of who did the confronting or how much hostility was expressed, confronted participants subsequently were less likely to provide stereotypic responses (Experiments 1-2), and the effect of the confrontation generalized to reporting less prejudiced attitudes (Experiment 3).

Confronting prejudice (literally): reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias.

Participants in two studies reported how they would feel, think, and behave after being confronted about either gender-biased or equivalent racial-biased responses. In Study 2, whether the confrontation was from a target group member (Black or female) or nontarget (White or male) group member was manipulated. Regardless of confronter status, allegations of racial bias elicited more guilt and apologetic-corrective responses and greater concern over having offended the confronter than similar confrontations of gender bias, which elicited more amusement. Target confrontations elicited less guilt but greater discomfort than nontarget confrontations and were associated with feelings of irritation and antagonism among more prejudiced participants. In addition, participants perceived a target's confrontation as more of an overreaction than the same confrontation from a nontarget. The implications of these findings for prejudice-reduction efforts are discussed.

Putting the brakes on prejudice: on the development and operation of cues for control.

A model concerning the establishment and operation of cues for control was developed and tested to understand how control can be exerted over (automatic) prejudiced responses. Cues for control are stimuli that are associated with prejudiced responses and the aversive consequences of those responses (e.g., guilt). In Experiments 1 and 2, 3 events critical to the establishment of cues occurred: behavioral inhibition, the experience of guilt, and retrospective reflection. In Experiment 3, the presentation of already-established cues for control did, as expected, produce behavioral inhibition. In Experiment 4, participants were provided with an experience in which cues could be established. Later presentation of those cues in a different task resulted in behavioral inhibition and less racially biased responses.