Who Is Responsible for Confronting Prejudice? The Role of Perceived and Conferred Authority
- PDF / 412,363 Bytes
- 13 Pages / 595.276 x 790.866 pts Page_size
- 81 Downloads / 179 Views
ORIGINAL PAPER
Who Is Responsible for Confronting Prejudice? The Role of Perceived and Conferred Authority Leslie Ashburn-Nardo 1
&
Alex Lindsey 2 & Kathryn A. Morris 3 & Stephanie A. Goodwin 4
# Springer Science+Business Media, LLC, part of Springer Nature 2019
Abstract Perceived responsibility for responding predicts whether people confront others’ discriminatory behavior, but who is seen as and actually feels responsible for confronting prejudice? Study 1 examined whether people view status-based authority figures, stigmatized targets, or other bystanders as responsible for confronting a witnessed prejudicial remark. Results revealed that participants viewed the authority figure as most responsible for responding, and they reported feeling less personally responsible in the presence of both authorities and targets. Study 2 examined whether being in a position of authority enhances perceptions of responsibility for responding to discrimination and, in turn, facilitates confrontation. Participants who were randomly assigned to a leadership (vs. non-leader control) condition witnessed a racially insensitive remark. Leadership increased perceived responsibility, but did not significantly increase confrontation. Study 3 builds on the previous two studies by showing that leaders in actual organizations feel more responsible for confronting prejudice compared to those who are not conferred authority status. These findings extend previous studies by uncovering an important antecedent (i.e., conferred authority) of feeling responsible for addressing prejudice, which is shown to be a key factor in predicting whether bystanders confront discrimination. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed. Keywords Prejudice . Confrontation . Discrimination . Leadership . Authority
Despite the prevalence of discrimination (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003) and the emotional discomfort that results from witnessing it (Schmader, Croft, Scarnier, Lickel, & Mendes, 2012), bystanders do not always intervene or communicate their disapproval to perpetrators (for a review, see Ashburn-Nardo & Abdul Karim, 2019). Such inaction can be Portions of this research were conducted in partial fulfillment of requirements for an undergraduate honors thesis, submitted by Alex Lindsey, to the Department of Psychology at Indiana University– Purdue University Indianapolis (IUPUI). * Leslie Ashburn-Nardo [email protected] 1
Department of Psychology, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, 402 N. Blackford Street, LD 124, Indianapolis, IN 46202, USA
2
The University of Memphis, Memphis, TN, USA
3
Butler University, Indianapolis, IN, USA
4
Wright State University, Dayton, OH, USA
considered a missed opportunity to curb perpetrators’ biases and discriminatory behavior, given confrontation’s documented success in reducing prejudice (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006), and it may signal to others that the witness condones the perpetrator’s behavior (Nelson
Data Loading...
