Search

Confronting bias can reduce prejudice and subsequent discriminatory behavior. However, people often hesitate to confront because of the perceived costs. Humorous confrontation may mitigate these costs. Using hypothetical scenarios, humorous confrontation was found to be similarly effective as serious confrontation, but with fewer social costs (Woodzicka, Julie A., Robyn K. Mallett & Kala J. Melchiori. 2020. Gender differences in using humor to respond to sexist jokes. Humor 33(2). 219–238). The present research tests whether these effects hold when confronted for expressing bias in a lab-based experiment. College-aged men were confronted for sexism by a man or woman in a serious or humorous manner. Compared to past work that used scenarios, we found that men responded in a more friendly way yet were more resistant to feedback when confronted for their actual behavior. Serious confrontations led men to use fewer stereotypes, apologize more, and lower their denial of stereotypic behavior compared to humorous confrontations or a control condition. Unlike past work using scenarios, men showed a more negative reaction to humorous confronters than serious confronters. Men confronters elicited less negative affect, especially compared to women confronters who used humor. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examine the degree to which women and men use humor to confront sexist jokes. We also test the social benefits and perceived effectiveness of confronting with humor. One-hundred-sixty-four (46% female) participants read about a male coworker who made a sexist joke and reported how they would respond in an open-ended format. Women were more likely than men to say they would respond with humor. Specifically, 16% of women, compared to 4.5% of men, spontaneously provided a humorous confrontation. Participants then read a second scenario that asked them to imagine a male friend making a sexist joke. We manipulated the confronter's gender and the type of confrontation (humorous versus serious) in the scenario. Confronters who used a humorous (versus serious) response were rated as more likeable but less effective. People often hesitate to confront sexism for fear of social repercussions. Given that humorous confrontation reduces social backlash, it might be worth slightly lower perceived effectiveness to increase overall rates of confronting sexism. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Although most women assume they would confront sexism, assertive responses are rare. We test whether women’s preference for respect or liking during interpersonal interactions explains this surprising tendency. Women report preferring respect relative to liking after being asked sexist, compared with inappropriate, questions during a virtual job interview (Study 1, n = 149). Women’s responses to sexism increase in assertiveness along with their preference for being respected, and a respect-preference mediates the relation between the type of questions and response assertiveness (Studies 1 and 2). In Study 2 (n = 105), women’s responses to sexist questions are more assertive when the sense of belonging is enhanced with a belonging manipulation. Moreover, preference for respect mediates the effect of the type of questions on response assertiveness, but only when belonging needs are met. Thus the likelihood of confrontation depends on the goal to be respected outweighing the goal to be liked. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]