“I Guess What He Said Wasn’t That Bad”

Rasinski, Heather M.; Geers, Andrew L.; Czopp, Alexander M.

doi:10.1177/0146167213484769

Cited by 38 publications

(38 citation statements)

References 38 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Also, non-confrontation may leave members of stigmatized groups feeling inauthentic, feeling they failed to be loyal to their true selves and personal goals. Such dissonance has been found to be so aversive that people who do not confront sometimes minimize the seriousness of the bias claim to restore a positive sense-of-self (Rasinski et al, 2013).…”

Section: Potential Hidden Costs Of Dealing With Stigmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping With Stigma in the Workplace: Understanding the Role of Threat Regulation, Supportive Factors, and Potential Hidden Costs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Despite changes in their representation and visibility, there are still serious concerns about the inclusion and day-to-day workplace challenges various groups face (e.g., women, ethnic and cultural minorities, LGBTQ+, people as they age, and those dealing with physical or mental disabilities). Men are also underrepresented in specific work fields, in particular those in Health care, Elementary Education, and the Domestic sphere (HEED). Previous literature has shown that group stereotypes play an important role in maintaining these inequalities. We outline how insights from research into stigma, social identity, and self-regulation together increase our understanding of how targets are affected by and regulate negative stereotypes in the workplace. This approach starts from the basis that members of negatively stereotyped groups are not just passive recipients of negative attitudes, stereotypes, and behaviors but are active individuals pursuing multiple goals, such as goals for belonging and achievement. We argue that it is only by understanding stigma from the target’s perspective (e.g., how targets are affected and respond) that we can successfully address workplace inequality. Key in this understanding is that stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination have taken on much more subtle forms, with consequences for the way members of stigmatized groups cope. These insights lead us to propose an approach to understanding barriers to workplace equality that highlights four key aspects: (1) the different (often subtle) potential triggers of identity threat in the workplace for members of stigmatized groups; (2) the ways in which members of stigmatized groups cope with these threats; (3) the role of supportive factors that mitigate potential threats and affect self-regulation; and (4) potential hidden costs for the self or others of what appears at first to be effective self-regulation. The focus on threats, coping, support, and potential hidden costs helps us understand why current diversity efforts are not always successful in increasing and maintaining members of stigmatized groups in organizations and provides insight into how we can aid efforts to effectively lower barriers to workplace equality.

show abstract

Section: Potential Hidden Costs Of Dealing With Stigmamentioning

confidence: 99%

Coping With Stigma in the Workplace: Understanding the Role of Threat Regulation, Supportive Factors, and Potential Hidden Costs

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There is very little work on the effects of not confronting so we had to estimate parameters based on evidence from one study in the context of gender bias and two studies in the context of racial bias. Rasinski, Geers, & Czopp (2013) found that among individuals who said that confronting sexism was important to them, not confronting a sexist comment (relative to being exposed to a sexist comment without the opportunity to confront) decreased self-reported importance of confronting on a second measure. Specifically, not confronting decreased participants' beliefs in the importance of confronting from 6.7 to 5.9 (estimated from figure): a difference of 0.8 on a 7-point scale.…”

Section: Does Bias Confrontation Change Subsequent Likelihood Of Bias?mentioning

confidence: 93%

Computational Justice: Simulating Structural Bias and Interventions

Momennejad

Sinclair

Cikara

2019

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Gender inequality has been documented across a variety of high-prestige professions. Both structural bias (e.g., lack of proportionate representation) and interpersonal bias (e.g., sexism, discrimination) generate costs to underrepresented minorities. How can we estimate these costs and what interventions are most effective for reducing them? We used agent-based simulations, removing gender differences in interpersonal bias to isolate and quantify the impact and costs of structural bias (unequal gender ratios) on individuals and institutions. We compared the long-term impact of biasconfrontation strategies. Unequal gender ratios led to higher costs for female agents and institutions and increased sexism among male agents. Confronting interpersonal bias by targets and allies attenuated the impact of structural bias. However, bias persisted even after a structural intervention to suddenly make previously unequal institutions equal (50% women) unless the probability of interpersonal bias-confrontation was further increased among targets and allies. This computational approach allows for comparison of various policies to attenuate structural equality, and informs the design of new experiments to estimate parameters for more accurate predictions. * Acknowledgement: We would like to thank Luis Piloto for insightful conversations and a Matlab implementation of earlier ideas, Vassiki Chauhan for helpful conversations, and Angie MichaelMeiztler for organizing a workshop to teach the model to the public. We gratefully acknowledge the support of NSF CAREER award 1653188 (awarded to MC).

show abstract

“…Negative reactions could be even more likely on the part of dominant group members when the ostracism is perpetrated by ingroup members against a member of an ethnic minority group because of the social identity threat represented by the possibility that their ingroupand by extension they themselves-are racist or appear to be racist [47][48][49]. Consistent with this idea, witnessing but not confronting discriminatory behavior has been shown to be a potentially dissonance-arousing experience [50]. Further, prior research suggests that the salience of a dominant group identity may elicit a variety of negative group-based emotions if individuals appraise their ingroup as responsible for perpetrating harm or illegitimate advantage over an outgroup [51,52].…”

Section: Enhanced Reactivity Hypothesismentioning

confidence: 94%

Do dominant group members have different emotional responses to observing dominant-on-dominant versus dominant-on-disadvantaged ostracism? Some evidence for heightened reactivity to potentially discriminatory ingroup behavior

Petsnik

Vorauer

2020

PLoS ONE

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The importance of social connection to well-being is underscored by individuals' reactivity to events highlighting the potential for rejection and exclusion, which extends even to observing the social exclusion of others ("vicarious ostracism"). Because responses to vicarious ostracism depend at least in part on empathy with the target, and individuals tend to empathize less readily with outgroup than ingroup members, the question arises as to whether there is a boundary condition on vicarious ostracism effects whereby individuals are relatively immune to observing ingroup-on-outgroup ostracism. Of particular interest is the case where members of a dominant ethnic group observe fellow ingroup members ostracize a member of a disadvantaged ethnic minority group, as here there is a compelling potential alternative: Perceived violation of contemporary social norms condemning prejudice and discrimination might instead lead dominant group members to be especially upset by "dominant-on-disadvantaged" ostracism. Accordingly, the present research examines, across four studies and 4413 participants, individuals' affective reactions to observing dominanton-disadvantaged versus dominant-on-dominant ostracism. In each study, dominant group members (White/Europeans) observed dominant group members include or ostracize a fellow dominant group member or a disadvantaged ethnic minority group member (a Black individual) in an online Cyberball game. Results revealed that dominant group members felt more guilt, anger, and sadness after observing severe ostracism of a disadvantaged as opposed to dominant group member. Although no direct effects emerged on behavioral outcomes, exploratory analyses suggested that observing ostracism of a disadvantaged (versus dominant) group member had indirect effects on behavior via increased feelings of anger. These results suggest that observing ostracism may be a sufficiently potent and relatable experience that when it occurs across group boundaries it awakens individuals' sensitivity to injustice and discrimination.

show abstract

“I Guess What He Said Wasn’t That Bad”

Cited by 38 publications

References 38 publications

Coping With Stigma in the Workplace: Understanding the Role of Threat Regulation, Supportive Factors, and Potential Hidden Costs

Coping With Stigma in the Workplace: Understanding the Role of Threat Regulation, Supportive Factors, and Potential Hidden Costs

Computational Justice: Simulating Structural Bias and Interventions

Do dominant group members have different emotional responses to observing dominant-on-dominant versus dominant-on-disadvantaged ostracism? Some evidence for heightened reactivity to potentially discriminatory ingroup behavior

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About