In search of gender bias in evaluations and trait inferences: The role of diagnosticity and gender stereotypicality of behavioral information

Meta-analytic reviews indicate that the gender of a target person has a significant but small impact on evaluators' judgments about this person. The present study examines the extent to which this small effect reflects evaluators' tendencies not to use an evaluatee's gender because they assume that case information about a target is more informative about his or her abilities, knowledge, and traits than is gender. The first study indicates that decreasing the diagnosticity of case information does not increase the tendency for people to be influenced by the target's gender. However, the first and second study illustrate that despite the weak influence of the target's gender, subjects are still using gender stereotypes when making social judgments about the evaluatee. This is evidenced by the impact of the stereotypicality of the case information. This is most clearly seen in Study 2, which illustrates how components of gender stereotypes are influencing judgments.Portions of this research were supported by a University of Minnesota Dissertation Grant. Thanks go to Gail Swenson, Rose Enriques, and Wayne Bylsma for their assistance in the data collection, to my committee members Eugene Borgida (Chairperson), Marti Gonzales, Mark Snyder, Geoffrey Maruyama, Barbara Loken for their suggestions on the first study, and to Cindy Thomsen and Eugene Borgida for their support, encouragement, and consultations.     

The Greta Thunberg Effect: Familiarity with Greta Thunberg predicts intentions to engage in climate activism in the United States

Despite Greta Thunberg's popularity, research has yet to investigate her impact on the public's willingness to take collective action on climate change. Using cross-sectional data from a nationally representative survey of U.S. adults (N = 1,303), we investigate the “Greta Thunberg Effect,” or whether exposure to Greta Thunberg predicts collective efficacy and intentions to engage in collective action. We find that those who are more familiar with Greta Thunberg have higher intentions of taking collective actions to reduce global warming and that stronger collective efficacy beliefs mediate this relationship. This association between familiarity with Greta Thunberg, collective efficacy beliefs, and collective action intentions is present even after accounting for respondents’ overall support for climate activism. Moderated mediation models testing age and political ideology as moderators of the “Greta Thunberg Effect” indicate that although the indirect effect of familiarity with Greta Thunberg via collective efficacy is present across all age-groups, and across the political spectrum, it may be stronger among those who identify as more liberal (than conservative). Our findings suggest that young public figures like Greta Thunberg may motivate collective action across the U.S. public, but their effect may be stronger among those with a shared political ideology. Implications for future research and for broadening climate activists’ appeals across the political spectrum are discussed.     

When do the stigmatized make attributions to discrimination occurring to the self and others? The roles of self-presentation and need for control

Two experiments examined how the goals of self-presentation and maintenance of control over one's outcomes influence women's tendencies to make or to avoid making attributions to discrimination. Demonstrating the importance of self-presentational goals, Experiment 1 showed that targets of discrimination were just as likely as similar others to make attributions to discrimination under private reporting conditions, but they were significantly less likely to do so under public reporting conditions. This experiment also provided initial evidence that need for personal control increases discrimination attributions. Experiment 2 demonstrated that targets' minimization of discrimination, observed in public reporting conditions, was eliminated when the need to reassert personal control was induced. Both experiments also demonstrated that failing to view events as discrimination has negative psychological costs.     

The role of intent and harm in judgments of prejudice and discrimination

Four experiments examined how an actor's intent and the harm experienced by a target influence judgments of prejudice and discrimination. The presence of intent increased the likelihood that participants judged an actor as prejudiced and the actor's behavior as discriminatory. When intent was uncertain, harm influenced judgments of the behavior, which in turn influenced judgments of the actor, and participants were more cautious in their judgments about an actor than an actor's behavior. Harm also played a stronger role in targets' than observers' judgments. Understanding the role of intent and harm on perceptions of prejudice can help explain variations in targets' versus observers', and possibly targets' versus actors', judgments of discrimination and prejudice.     

Role of Gender in Behavioral Interdependence and Relationship Outcomes for Premarital Couples

One aspect of gender identity, preferences forgender-related activities, was examined using gender andinterdependence theories for a sample of 59,predominately Caucasian, premarital couples. Respondents completed interviews in which they reported ontheir preferences for activities, relationshipsatisfaction, other relationship dimensions, and actualperformance of the activities. Groups of couples were created by using median splits to reflect thesimilarity and traditionality of coupled partners'preferences for gender-related activities. Two mainfindings were apparent: (a) couples in which bothpartners liked the activities and couples in which bothpartners held traditional preferences had positiverelationship outcomes, and (b) couples in which bothpartners disliked the activities had the least favorable outcomes.     

Bitter reproach or sweet revenge: cultural differences in response to racism

Culture has been shown to influence response styles. The authors conducted two studies to test the notion that African Americans would be more likely to respond to racism directly, whereas Asian Americans would be more likely to respond indirectly and therefore more subtly. Study 1 showed that Black women subjected to a racist comment from a confederate during an online interaction were more likely than Asian women to verbally reproach the perpetrator. These group differences were not present when the outcome measure was indirect responding--administration of good/bad jellybeans. Study 2 used an online format to demonstrate that Asian women were more likely than Black women to say they would not respond directly to a racist comment. This group difference in unwillingness to confront was significantly mediated by a goal of maintaining peace with their interaction partner. Implications of these findings for the study of discrimination, coping, and well-being are discussed.     

Making the Best of a Bad Situation: Proactive Coping with Racial Discrimination

Proactive coping with racial discrimination takes three forms: self-focused coping, situation-focused coping, and avoidance. Overall, African Americans used self-focused coping more than situation-focused coping or physical avoidance, though there were interesting differences between retrospective recall of racial discrimination and daily reports. Relative to reports during the diary week, when recalling how they typically dealt with racial discrimination, African Americans overestimated their use of situation-focused strategies and underestimated their use of self-focused strategies. For both retrospective and daily reports, proactive coping was positively related to primary appraisals of harm but unrelated to secondary appraisals of resources. African American identification, but not stigma consciousness or optimism, was uniquely associated with proactive coping. We discuss the potential benefits and limitations of proactive coping with racial discrimination.     

Evaluating Gender Biases on Actual Job Performance of Real People: A Meta‐Analysis1

This study examined gender bias on job performance in work settings where confounding variables (e. g., organizational level, experience, education) were cautiously taken into consideration to ensure fair comparisons. Although previous meta‐analyses examined gender biases on evaluations, findings in tightly controlled laboratory environments may differ from those in highly complicated field studies. We found little evidence of overall gender bias in performance appraisals in nonconfounded field studies. However, there were significant pro‐male biases when only men served as raters. Measure‐specific gender stereotypicality, instead of genera! stereotypicality about the job, produced gender bias in performance appraisal. Masculine measures produced pro‐male bias, and feminine measures produced pro‐female bias.     

Understanding Subtle Sexism: Detection and Use of Sexist Language

In the present research we examined the association between Modern Sexist beliefs and identifying and engaging in subtle sexist behavior. In Study 1, we found that those who endorsed Modern Sexist beliefs were less likely to detect the occurrence of normative sexist behavior (i.e., the use of sexist language), and this oversight was a function of their failure to define such behavior as sexist. In Study 2, we found that those who endorsed Modern Sexist beliefs were more likely to use sexist language and less likely to use nonsexist language. Use of nonsexist language was a function of personal definitions of sexist language. Results are discussed in terms of motivations to self-correct discriminatory behavior and conceptualizations of current forms of sexism.     

Ask,Answer, and Announce: Three stages in perceiving and responding to discrimination

Discrimination towards members of low-status groups takes a variety of forms, and results in a variety of negative consequences for its victims. Furthermore, discrimination may influence its targets either directly (for instance, when housing discrimination makes insurance, mortgage rates, or rents higher for African Americans than for whites) or indirectly, that is via perceptions on the part of the stigmatised. In the latter case the outcomes are caused or amplified by perceptions on the part of the victim that he or she is the target of discrimination. This chapter focuses on current research concerning factors that influence the perception of discrimination and its indirect influence on individuals. We review work from our own lab as well as from the field more broadly, focusing on research that attempts to explain contextual and individual variability in how events that are potentially due to discrimination are initially perceived, subsequently interpreted, and then publicly reported or withheld.