Excuse Me—What Did You Just Say?!: Women's Public and Private Responses to Sexist Remarks

Swim, Janet K.; Hyers, Lauri L.

doi:10.1006/jesp.1998.1370

Cited by 321 publications

(412 citation statements)

References 27 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

385

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Yet, as indicated earlier, discrimination more typically is not followed by such actions (Foster & Matheson, 1999;Louis & Taylor, 1999;Swim & Hyers, 1999;Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). It is contended in the present investigation that action propensities may be diminished owing to the presence of other emotions, and in particular shame.…”

Section: Overview Of Present Investigationmentioning

confidence: 53%

“…This said, it should be noted that the present investigation did not assess actual behaviors, but rather women's endorsements of the likelihood that they would engage in such actions if they had the opportunity to do so. As previously noted, intentions do not always correspond to action (Swim & Hyers, 1999;Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). Thus, the limited support of the hypotheses regarding action endorsements may be due to the methodological paradigm.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

“…To the extent that discriminatory events are encountered on a chronic, unpredictable basis, and often occur in contexts in which women have a vested interest in maintaining positive social or professional relations, they might very well experience shame associated with losing status in the eyes of others. At the same time, within this context, women are unlikely to confront the perpetrator (Swim & Hyers, 1999;Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001), potentially giving rise to further shame. The fact that shame, and the associated cortisol reactivity, could be elicited within a laboratory context begs the question as to how much more potent such events would be in a real world context.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Matheson

Anisman

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Discrimination often elicits anger, and yet group members typically do not take actions to confront their situation. It may be that other emotions that run contrary to action-taking also arise (e.g., shame), limiting the active expression of anger. Indeed, Study 1 (N ¼ 36) revealed that, using a failure feedback paradigm, women expressed greater shame when their failure was due to discrimination, compared to a lack of personal merit. In contrast to anger, self-reported shame was not associated with action-taking. In Study 2, women (N ¼ 91) were emotionally primed to feel either anger or shame (vs. a no mood prime control), and the moderating influence of coping styles on the link between emotions, actions, and salivary cortisol levels following discrimination were assessed. Among women primed to feel anger, problem-focused coping predicted reduced self-reported shame, lower cortisol reactivity, and greater individualistic confrontational action endorsements. In contrast, priming shame increased cortisol reactivity, but diminished the relation between particular coping styles and their capacity to facilitate action. Findings are discussed in terms of the interactive influence of emotions and coping on responses to discrimination. Copyright # 2008 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.The predominant emotion elicited by overt experiences of discrimination is that of anger, particularly when the situation is viewed as unjust and the ingroup as strong (Mackie, Devos, & Smith, 2000;Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003). Feelings of anger typically serve as a catalyst for action (Frijda, Kuipers, & TerSchure, 1989), including confrontational strategies on behalf of the group (Gill & Matheson, 2006;Mackie et al., 2000;van Zomeren, Spears, Fischer, & Leach, 2004;Yzerbyt, Dumont, Wigboldus, & Gordijn, 2003). Yet, actions to overcome the disadvantaged status of one's group are not, in fact, common (Louis & Taylor, 1999;Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). The factors that attenuate the relation between feelings of anger and group members' willingness to act on them remain to be fully elucidated.Due to pressures to take personal responsibility for negative events (Garcia, Horstman Reser, Amo, Redersdorff, & Branscombe, 2005;Stangor, Swim, VanAllen, & Sechrist, 2002), group members might not simply feel anger when they encounter discrimination, but may also experience feelings of shame (Tangney & Dearing, 2002;Tracy & Robins, 2004). Feelings of shame, in turn, might militate against the use of confrontational actions (Frijda et al., 1989). The present investigation evaluated women's emotions, particularly anger and shame, and their relation to action endorsements when women experienced gender discrimination. Further, inasmuch as discrimination may function as a stressor, individuals' coping propensities might serve to moderate the impact of anger and shame on behavioral responses to a discrimination event. As well, particular emotional responses, and especially shame, have been linked to physiological stress reactions, su...

show abstract

Section: Overview Of Present Investigationmentioning

confidence: 53%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 77%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Matheson

Anisman

2008

Euro J Social Psych

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The literature on unfair and discriminatory treatment suggests that common responses are to retreat from or avoid situations in which it might occur (e.g., Pinel, 1999) or to confront perpetrators (Swim & Hyers, 1999). These responses fit a selfregulatory focus on prevention (e.g., Higgins et al, 2001).…”

Section: General Discussion Unfair Treatment 19mentioning

confidence: 99%

Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus

Oyserman

Üskül

Yoder

et al. 2007

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Word count = 4996Unfair treatment 2 AbstractAmple correlational evidence exists that perceived unfair treatment is negatively related to well-being, health, and goal striving but the underlying process is unclear.We hypothesized that effects are due in part to contextual priming of prevention focus and the negative consequences of chronic prevention-focused vigilance. Indeed, reasonable responses to unfair treatment -to avoid situations in which it occurs or if this is not possible, confront it head on -fit prevention self-regulatory focus response patterns.Results from three experiments support this notion. Priming stigmatized social category membership heightened students' prevention (not promotion) focus (n = 117). Priming non-stigmatized social category membership (i.e., white) did not change prevention focus (n = 46). Priming prevention (not promotion) increased perceptions of unfair treatment (and aroused prevention-relevant fight or flight responses) in response to a negative ambiguous job situation among low and moderate income adults (n = 112). Keywords: Unfair treatment, self-regulatory focus, prevention, promotion, discrimination, African American, social class Unfair treatment 3 Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus Your professor asks if your parents ever went to college (they didn't), your new supervisor hands you an unfavorable performance review (you are African American), leading you to wonder, 'is this fair; why is this happening to me?' In the current paper we explore situations like these and ask whether these kinds of contextual cues shift the attention of potentially stigmatized individuals to avoiding problems and the possible behavioral consequences of such shifts. We provide evidence for effects in both academic and workplace contexts.Unfair treatment threatens self-concept by communicating a lack of regard for one's social identity and basic worth (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). It is psychologically damaging because it provides a sense of not mattering, and mattering, the feeling that others care about our fate and experience, is fundamental to wellbeing (Turner, Taylor, & Van Gundy, 2004). Moreover, the experience of unfair treatment is derailing and disrupts pursuit of personal goals (Link, Cullen, Frank, & Wozniak, 1987). Examples include being excluded from fair chances at school or on the job (Pavalko, Mossakowski, & Hamilton, 2003) or being the target of negative assumptions or poor service in public facilities (Neckerman, Carter, & Lee, 1999). An essential characteristic of unfair treatment is the combination of negative outcomes and ambiguity that is both attributional (e.g., were the negative outcomes due to unfair treatment or were they due to my ability?) and behavioral (e.g., what is the appropriate response even if the treatment is unfair --should I ignore it, avoid this situation in the future, or confront the situation head on now?). Unfair treatment 4Perceived unfair treatment is associated with poor physical and psychological health and unfair treatment is mor...

show abstract

“…This may reflect their uncertainty about the intent behind a male's behavior (e.g., opening doors). However, even women who are clear that they find such help-giving objectionable may not confront those involved (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005;Swim & Hyers, 1999). Often this is because the costs of doing so can be high.…”

Section: Negotiating Benevolent Sexismmentioning

confidence: 99%

Thanks, But No Thanks

Wakefield

Hopkins

Greenwood

2012

Psychology of Women Quarterly

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The stereotype that women are dependent on men is a commonly verbalized, potentially damaging aspect of benevolent sexism. We investigated how women may use behavioral disconfirmation of the personal applicability of the stereotype to negotiate such sexism. In an experiment (N ¼ 86), we manipulated female college students' awareness that women may be stereotyped by men as dependent. We then placed participants in a situation where they needed help. Women made aware of the dependency stereotype (compared to controls who were not) were less willing to seek help. They also displayed a stronger negative correlation between help-seeking and post help-seeking affect-such that the more help they sought, the worse they felt. We discuss the relevance of these findings for research concerning women's help-seeking and their management of sexist stereotyping in everyday interaction. We also consider the implications of our results for those working in domains such as health care, teaching, and counseling, where interaction with individuals in need and requiring help is common.

show abstract

Excuse Me—What Did You Just Say?!: Women's Public and Private Responses to Sexist Remarks

Cited by 321 publications

References 27 publications

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Anger and shame elicited by discrimination: Moderating role of coping on action endorsements and salivary cortisol

Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus

Thanks, But No Thanks

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About