Strategic confrontation: Examining the utility of low stakes prodding as a strategy for confronting sexism

Confronting sexism has been routinely operationalized in experimental research as assertive behavior that expresses disapproval of sexism. The present research examines an indirect confrontation strategy we term low stakes prodding. We first establish the use of this strategy in a real-time sexist situation (Pilot study, N = 59), then test whether this indirect type of confrontation is considered to be an effective strategy for reducing sexism (Study 1, N = 138), and finally investigate whether low stakes prodding is deliberately used to avoid work-related costs (Study 2, N = 129). Study 1 demonstrated that the majority of respondents perceived low stakes prodding as confrontation, but viewed it as less effective when it was delayed. Study 2 showed that low stakes prodding was seen as a somewhat deliberate confrontation strategy that contributes to positive interpersonal interactions. Overall, the current research suggests that definitions of confrontation need to be expanded in order to encompass strategies used in actual situations of sexism.

How do confronters want perpetrators to respond? Defining successful confrontation as the match between desired and actual outcomes

Research on confronting prejudice frequently defines an effective confrontation as one that induces change in the perpetrator's prejudicial beliefs or actions. We argue for a broader definition, defining successful confrontation as one that elicits the confronter's desired response. Using a community sample of 152 adults, we conducted an exploratory study in which participants recalled a time when they had confronted racism or sexism. Results revealed a frequent mismatch between what confronters desired and what they received from the perpetrator. Path analysis showed that a perceived match between desired and actual perpetrator responses to confrontation predicted greater positive and lower negative emotion among confronters, across a range of perpetrator responses. We argue that researchers need to expand definitions of successful confrontation to better understand the ways in which confronters' and perpetrators' behaviors intersect within lived experiences of prejudice.

Many Labs 2: Investigating Variation in Replicability Across Samples and Settings

We conducted preregistered replications of 28 classic and contemporary published findings, with protocols that were peer reviewed in advance, to examine variation in effect magnitudes across samples and settings. Each protocol was administered to approximately half of 125 samples that comprised 15,305 participants from 36 countries and territories. Using the conventional criterion of statistical significance ( p < .05), we found that 15 (54%) of the replications provided evidence of a statistically significant effect in the same direction as the original finding. With a strict significance criterion ( p < .0001), 14 (50%) of the replications still provided such evidence, a reflection of the extremely high-powered design. Seven (25%) of the replications yielded effect sizes larger than the original ones, and 21 (75%) yielded effect sizes smaller than the original ones. The median comparable Cohen’s ds were 0.60 for the original findings and 0.15 for the replications. The effect sizes were small (< 0.20) in 16 of the replications (57%), and 9 effects (32%) were in the direction opposite the direction of the original effect. Across settings, the Q statistic indicated significant heterogeneity in 11 (39%) of the replication effects, and most of those were among the findings with the largest overall effect sizes; only 1 effect that was near zero in the aggregate showed significant heterogeneity according to this measure. Only 1 effect had a tau value greater than .20, an indication of moderate heterogeneity. Eight others had tau values near or slightly above .10, an indication of slight heterogeneity. Moderation tests indicated that very little heterogeneity was attributable to the order in which the tasks were performed or whether the tasks were administered in lab versus online. Exploratory comparisons revealed little heterogeneity between Western, educated, industrialized, rich, and democratic (WEIRD) cultures and less WEIRD cultures (i.e., cultures with relatively high and low WEIRDness scores, respectively). Cumulatively, variability in the observed effect sizes was attributable more to the effect being studied than to the sample or setting in which it was studied.

Putting the brakes on prejudice rebound effects: An ironic effect of disparagement humor

When people high in prejudice censor prejudice in one setting, they can experience a prejudice rebound effect-subsequently responding with more prejudice than otherwise. Disparagement humor fosters the release rather than suppression of prejudice. Thus, two experiments tested the hypothesis that exposure to disparagement humor attenuates rebound effects. Participants suppressed prejudice by writing fewer anti-gay thoughts about same-sex adoption (Experiment 1) or by reporting greater support for same-sex civil rights (Experiment 2) when expecting to share their responses with others (non-prejudice norm condition) but not if others first exchanged anti-gay jokes (prejudice norm condition). High-prejudice participants then exhibited prejudice rebound in the non-prejudice norm condition only. They rated a gay man more stereotypically (Experiment 1) and allocated greater budget cuts to a gay student organization (Experiment 2) in the non-prejudice norm condition.

Investigating Variation in Replicability

Although replication is a central tenet of science, direct replications are rare in psychology. This research tested variation in the replicability of 13 classic and contemporary effects across 36 independent samples totaling 6,344 participants. In the aggregate, 10 effects replicated consistently. One effect – imagined contact reducing prejudice – showed weak support for replicability. And two effects – flag priming influencing conservatism and currency priming influencing system justification – did not replicate. We compared whether the conditions such as lab versus online or US versus international sample predicted effect magnitudes. By and large they did not. The results of this small sample of effects suggest that replicability is more dependent on the effect itself than on the sample and setting used to investigate the effect.

Commentaries and Rejoinder on

While direct replications such as the “Many Labs” project are extremely valuable in testing the reliability of published findings across laboratories, they reflect the common reliance in psychology on single vignettes or stimuli, which limits the scope of the conclusions that can be reached. New experimental tools and statistical techniques make it easier to routinely sample stimuli, and to appropriately treat them as random factors. We encourage researchers to get into the habit of including multiple versions of the content (e.g., stimuli or vignettes) in their designs, to increase confidence in cross-stimulus generalization and to yield more realistic estimates of effect size. We call on editors to be aware of the challenges inherent in such stimulus sampling, to expect and tolerate unexplained variability in observed effect size between stimuli, and to encourage stimulus sampling instead of the deceptively cleaner picture offered by the current reliance on single stimuli.

Not all groups are equal: Differential vulnerability of social groups to the prejudice-releasing effects of disparagement humor

Three experiments tested hypotheses about why humor that disparages some groups fosters discrimination whereas humor that disparages others does not. Experiment 1 showed that disparagement humor fosters discrimination against groups for whom society’s attitudes are ambivalent. Participants higher in anti-Muslim prejudice tolerated discrimination against a Muslim person more after reading anti-Muslim jokes than after reading anti-Muslim statements or neutral jokes. Experiments 2 and 3 tested the hypothesis that disparagement humor promotes discrimination against groups for whom society’s attitudes are ambivalent but not groups for whom prejudice is justified. In Experiment 2 participants higher in anti-Muslim prejudice discriminated against Muslims more after reading anti-Muslim jokes than neutral jokes, while antiterrorist jokes did not promote discrimination against terrorists. In Experiment 3 participants higher in antigay prejudice discriminated against a gay student organization more after reading antigay jokes than after reading neutral or antiracist jokes; antiracist jokes did not promote discrimination against a racist student organization.

The effects of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic textbook images on science performance

We investigated the effect of gender stereotypic and counter-stereotypic images on male and female high school students' science comprehension and anxiety. We predicted stereotypic images to induce stereotype threat in females and impair science performance. Counter-stereotypic images were predicted to alleviate threat and enhance female performance. Students read one of three chemistry lessons, each containing the same text, with photograph content varied according to stereotype condition. Participants then completed a comprehension test and anxiety measure. Results indicate that female students had higher comprehension after viewing counter-stereotypic images (female scientists) than after viewing stereotypic images (male scientists). Male students had higher comprehension after viewing stereotypic images than after viewing counter-stereotypic images. Implications for alleviating the gender gap in science achievement are discussed.