Dissertation
Expecting prejudice confrontation to backfire: Prejudice norms and misalignment between forecaster expectations and experiencer realities
(2020)
Abstract
Interpersonal confrontation has been heralded in the stereotyping and prejudice literature
as a situationally flexible, personally empowering, and highly effective prejudice reduction
approach (Czopp & Ashburn-Nardo, 2012; Mallett & Monteith, 2019b). Indeed, a number of
experiments consistently show that confrontation (compared to ‘no confrontation’) reduces
confrontees’ stereotyping and prejudice endorsement, even among high-prejudice confrontees
who reject egalitarian values (e.g., Burns & Monteith, 2018; Chaney & Sanchez, 2018; Czopp et
al., 2006). These experiments, however, have uniformly tested confrontation efficacy in social
settings where egalitarian norms are strong. This is problematic because norm compliance
pressure is theorized to be a key mechanism explaining how confrontation regulates prejudice
expression (Czopp et al., 2006). The present research addresses this limitation by comparing
confrontation effectiveness across situations where prejudice expression is deemed socially
acceptable and unacceptable. In Study 1, college students’ forecast how they would feel, think,
and behave in response to being confronted. In Studies 2 and 3, college students’ biased
responses were confronted and they reported their feelings, thoughts, and behavioral intentions,
while their subsequent stereotyping behaviors were unobtrusively measured. A stark divide
between forecaster expectations and experiencer realities emerged. Study 1 analyses revealed
that in situations where prejudice acceptability was high (vs. low and moderate), college student
forecasters expected prejudice expression to be less offensive and, consequently, anticipated
feeling less guilty for expressing prejudice and weaker motivation to self-correct. These same
forecasters also anticipated that confrontation would make them feel angrier and expected to
express more dismissiveness and hostility. In Studies 2 and 3, however, self-corrective reactions
to confrontation emerged regardless of prejudice acceptability level. College students confronted
for expressing prejudice (vs. not confronted) rated their own stereotyping behaviors as more
offensive. In turn, they reported feeling more guilt and a stronger desire to self-correct.
Additionally, these students reduced their degree of behavioral stereotyping following the
confrontation. Taken together, these findings suggest that, despite forecaster intuitions,
confrontation can be an effective prejudice reduction tool, even in situations where prejudice
expression is widely considered socially acceptable. Theoretical and applied implications of this
work are discussed, as well as directions for future research.
Keywords
- confrontation; prejudice and stereotyping; social norms; prejudice norms; prejudice acceptability
Disciplines
Publication Date
2020
Degree
Ph.D.
Department
Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences
Comments
Submitted to the faculty of the University Graduate School in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree Doctor of Philosophy in the Department of Psychological & Brain Sciences, Indiana University
June 2020.
This work is under a CC-BY-NC-SA license. You are free to copy and redistribute the material in any format as well as remix, transform, and build upon the material as long as you give appropriate credit to the original creator, provide a link to the license, and indicate any changes made. You may not use this work for commercial purpose and must distribute any contributions under an identical license.
Citation Information
Kroeper, K. M. (2020). Expecting prejudice confrontation to backfire: Prejudice norms and misalignment between forecaster expectations and experiencer realities. [Unpublished Dissertation Manuscript]. Open Access Link: http://hdl.handle.net/2022/25519
Creative Commons license
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons CC_BY-NC-SA International License.