Responses to Discrimination: The Role of Emotion and Expectations for Emotional Regulation

Abstract

The present study examined the role of emotion in women's perceptions of discrimination and their endorsement of behavioral responses to change the status quo. In an experimental simulation involving a situation of sex discrimination, women (N = 108) were primed to experience a particular emotion (sad, angry, control condition) and were subsequently instructed to either suppress or express (or neither) their emotional responses. Women primed to feel sad and told to suppress their emotions reported the least discrimination, whereas angered women who were permitted to express themselves reported the greatest discrimination. Furthermore, when encouraged to express their emotions, women primed to feel sad were more likely to endorse normative actions to rectify the situation, whereas women induced to feel angry were more likely to endorse collective actions to change the status quo. These findings have implications for the role of emotions and expectations regarding their expression on collective action taking.

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

“…Following an overview of the procedures, informed consent was obtained, and participants completed a short story-writing task to set the stage for providing failure feedback (Gill & Matheson, 2006). A female experimenter told participants, all of 166 Kimberly Matheson and Hymie Anisman whom were tested individually, that the purpose of the study was to identify factors that contribute to creativity, as this ability was important to career success.…”

“…Following an overview of the procedures, informed consent was obtained, and participants completed a short story-writing task to set the stage for providing failure feedback (Gill & Matheson, 2006). A female experimenter told participants, all of Figure 1.…”

“…Accordingly, examination of the role of emotions in relation to action endorsements to contend with discrimination has typically been correlational in nature. However, mood states are not simply a consequence of prior events, but individuals might also bring particular mood states to the situation, which could potentially guide interpretation of events (Bodenhausen, Mussweiler, Gabriel, & Moreno, 2001;DeSteno, Dasgupta, Bartlett, & Cajdric, 2004;Smith & Kessler, 2004), and subsequent action propensities (Gill & Matheson, 2006). This being the case, it may be possible to prime emotions in order to evaluate the causal contribution of particular emotions to subsequent responses to discrimination.…”

“…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).…”

“…Allegedly, those who qualified for the high status group would be eligible to participate in a $100 lottery and receive full experimental credit, whereas those in the low status group would participate in a $10 lottery and would only receive half of their experimental credit. These procedures provide sufficient incentive to make the two groups differentially desirable (Gill & Matheson, 2006;Wright et al, 1990). In reality, all women received full compensation, and none of the subsequent tasks were conducted.…”