Ask, Answer, and Announce: Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination

Stangor, Charles; Swim, Janet K.; Sechrist, Gretchen B.; DeCoster, Jamie; Allen, Katherine L. Van; Ottenbreit, Alison

doi:10.1080/10463280340000090

Cited by 81 publications

(91 citation statements)

References 68 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Therefore, it might be easier for future research to test predictions of the GIM for other behavioral indicators than just collective action. For instance, it is assumable that the different types of gender identity differ in the likelihood of confronting sexist incidents in everyday life (Stangor, Swim, Sechrist, DeCoster, van Allen, & Ottenbreit, 2003).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's endorsement of sexist beliefs

Becker

Wagner

2008

Euro J Social Psych

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

To explain differences in women's endorsement of sexist beliefs, we introduce the gender identity model (GIM). Based on social identity theory (SIT) and social role theory (SRT), we combine strength of gender identification and identity content and propose that different types of gender identity can be distinguished, which are predicted to relate to different levels of women's endorsement of sexist beliefs and engagement in collective action. Results of a correlational study and two experiments support the assumptions of the model: women reject Benevolent (BS), Hostile (HS), and Modern Sexisms (MS) and participate in collective action in particular when they are highly identified with the category women and have, at the same time, internalized progressive identity contents. In contrast, gender role preference has weaker or no effects on sexist beliefs and collective action when women are low identified with their gender in-group.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's endorsement of sexist beliefs

Becker

Wagner

2008

Euro J Social Psych

101

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Therefore, gender identification might well moderate the effects of sexism on mental intrusions and performance. Indeed, there are individual differences in the tendency to detect discrimination (e.g., Stangor et al, 2003). Some women more strongly identify with their gender group and have a better constructed and more positive image of their ingroup than other women.…”

Section: Variables Potentially Protecting Against Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance.

Dardenne

Dumont

Bollier

2007

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

367

388

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Four experiments found benevolent sexism to be worse than hostile sexism for women's cognitive performance. Experiments 1-2 showed effects of paternalist benevolent sexism and ruled out explanations of perceived sexism, context pleasantness, and performance motivation. Experiment 3 showed effects of both paternalist and complementary gender differentiation components of benevolent sexism. Benevolent sexism per se (rather than the provision of unsolicited help involved in paternalism) worsened performance. Experiment 4 showed that impaired performance due to benevolent sexism was fully mediated by the mental intrusions women experienced about their sense of competence. Additionally, Experiment 4 showed that gender identification protected against hostile but not benevolent sexism. Despite the apparently positive and inoffensive tone of benevolent sexism, our research emphasizes its insidious dangers.Keywords: benevolent and hostile sexism, discrimination, performance and working memory, ingroup identification, sense of competence Sexism is expressed in a variety of ways, some more subtle than others and some more hostile than others. Examples of this attitude are gender-related humor, sexist name-calling, sexual harassment, and employment discrimination. Gender discrimination, like any other type of discrimination, is less and less accepted in our modern societies, and legislation has been designed to promote gender equality. In Europe, for instance, Article 141 of the European Commission's treaty states that any job classification system that is used for determining pay must be based on the same criteria for both men and women and be so written as to exclude any sex discrimination. Nonetheless, even if obvious forms of sexism are often socially condemned, more subtle forms of sexism are not. Worse, they sometimes are promoted, as they may sound positive in tone or even seem gallant or chivalrous. Consider, for instance, a man helping a woman to carry luggage, paying for her meal at a restaurant, or complimenting her caring abilities. One might ask what is wrong with that. The problem is that people do not notice that these behaviors may be threatening. These kinds of behavior might, however, be expressions of paternalism or else might ambivalently flatter women while simultaneously implicitly suggesting their inferiority. Paternalism suggests that men should take responsibility for the welfare of women, who might not be able to carry luggage by themselves, might not earn enough money to pay at the restaurant, and should be remembered for their qualities (warmth) rather than their weak points (competence). In this article, we propose that paternalism as well as the other aspects of benevolent sexism, by suggesting women's lack of ability, are devastating to women's performance. Sexism Versus PatronizingHostile and benevolent sexism often go hand in hand and result in ambivalent attitudes toward women (Glick & Fiske, 1996. Hostile sexism is an obviously antagonistic attitude toward women, who are often viewed as t...

show abstract

“…Indeed, discrimination claimants are perceived as more true to themselves (Kaiser & Miller, 2001) and more competent on the task in which performance was attributed to discrimination (Stangor et al, 2003). Discrimination claimants also experience increased personal control (Sechrist, Swim, & Stangor, 2004) and their claims reduce others' prejudice (Czopp & Monteith, 2003).…”

Section: Caveatsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When the target attributed his grade to discrimination, he was derogated (e.g., perceived as irritating, a complainer) to a greater extent than when he attributed his grade to other causes, and this occurred regardless of the likelihood that a racist evaluator graded the test. Similarly, several experiments utilizing Kaiser and Miller's design (Garcia, Reser, Amo, Redersdorff, & Branscombe, 2005;Stangor et al, 2003) as well as other paradigms (Czopp & Monteith, 2003;Kaiser & Miller, 2003;Shelton & Stewart, 2004) demonstrate that individuals belonging to a variety of groups experience interpersonal costs when they make discrimination attributions. However, researchers are still uncertain why these interpersonal costs occur.…”

Section: Abstract: Discrimination; Attribution; Legitimacy; System Jumentioning

confidence: 99%

Why Are Attributions to Discrimination Interpersonally Costly? A Test of System- and Group-Justifying Motivations

Kaiser

Dyrenforth

Hagiwara

2006

Pers Soc Psychol Bull

111

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

be achieved without considering the interpersonal consequences of these judgments. We first describe these interpersonal consequences and then integrate this research within a theoretical framework examining how system-and group-justifying beliefs moderate these consequences. Interpersonal Nature of Discrimination AttributionsIn the first investigation documenting the interpersonal consequences of discrimination attributions, Kaiser and Miller (2001) had White participants read about a Black man who received a failing test grade from a grader who was certainly, possibly, or not at all prejudiced against Blacks. Participants then learned that the target attributed his grade either to discrimination, his inadequate test answers (an internal attribution), or the test difficulty (an external attribution). Both internal and external attribution control groups were utilized because discrimination attributions are both internal (causal locus resides within one's social

show abstract

Ask, Answer, and Announce: Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination

Cited by 81 publications

References 68 publications

Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's endorsement of sexist beliefs

Doing gender differently—The interplay of strength of gender identification and content of gender identity in predicting women's endorsement of sexist beliefs

Insidious dangers of benevolent sexism: Consequences for women's performance.

Why Are Attributions to Discrimination Interpersonally Costly? A Test of System- and Group-Justifying Motivations

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About