nach oben

Journal of Business and Psychology

Erschienen in:

05.09.2019 | Original Paper

Who Is Responsible for Confronting Prejudice? The Role of Perceived and Conferred Authority

verfasst von: Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Alex Lindsey, Kathryn A. Morris, Stephanie A. Goodwin

Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology | Ausgabe 6/2020

Einloggen

Aktivieren Sie unsere intelligente Suche, um passende Fachinhalte oder Patente zu finden.

search-config

KI-gestützte Suche

Aus

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.

Vorheriger Artikel Personal Endorsement of Ambivalent Sexism and Career Success: an Investigation of Differential Mechanisms

Nächster Artikel Measuring task conflicts as they occur: a real-time assessment of task conflicts and their immediate affective, cognitive and social consequences

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 102.000 Bücher
über 537 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Automobil + Motoren
Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Elektrotechnik + Elektronik
Energie + Nachhaltigkeit
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Maschinenbau + Werkstoffe
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Online-Abonnement

Mit Springer Professional "Wirtschaft" erhalten Sie Zugriff auf:

über 67.000 Bücher
über 340 Zeitschriften

aus folgenden Fachgebieten:

Bauwesen + Immobilien
Business IT + Informatik
Finance + Banking
Management + Führung
Marketing + Vertrieb
Versicherung + Risiko

Jetzt Wissensvorsprung sichern!

Jetzt informieren

Participants were also asked to rate the observers in terms of how responsible they were for addressing the incident, using a single item (e.g., “To what extent is the RA responsible for addressing the [racist/sexist] remark) on a 7-point scale (1 = definitely is not responsible to 7 = definitely is responsible). Regrettably in hindsight, participants responded to different items based on their assigned condition. For example, those in the “target and RA present” condition completed items assessing perceived responsibility of each as well as an item assessing perceived responsibility of other bystanders who were present. Those in the “target present and RA absent” condition only completed items assessing perceived responsibility of the target and other bystanders, and so on. As a result, interpretation of the ratings data is less straightforward than that of the rankings data. However, we did conduct analyses when common dependent variables were present. It is noteworthy that when limiting the sample to participants who read a scenario in which both the RA and target group member were present, findings paralleled those of the rank order data. Specifically, results from this analysis showed that designated authority figures (M = 5.84, SD = 1.26) were viewed as significantly more responsible than stigmatized targets (M = 4.14, SD = 1.94; t(80) = 6.72, p < .001) for confronting. Additional findings are available from the corresponding author upon request.

We were also interested in whether leadership type (person- vs. task-oriented) affected personal responsibility and confrontation. Thus, our original leadership manipulation comprised three levels (person-oriented leader vs. task-oriented leader vs. non-leader control). Toward this end, participants read articles that described a person-oriented versus a task-oriented leader or read an article that did not pertain to leadership. Our attempt to prime leadership type was unsuccessful; the person- versus task-oriented leader conditions did not differ from each other in any of our analyses. Thus, we collapsed the person- versus task-oriented leadership conditions for all reported analyses and will not discuss leadership type further.

We also assessed whether, for people with supervisory roles at work, perceived responsibility for confronting prejudice increased as a function of the number of employees they supervised. Our reasoning was that number of supervisees might be a proxy for a supervisor’s status within the organization, and thus associated with a greater sense of authority and responsibility. Indeed, although we found this relationship after removing three extreme outliers for the number of supervisees reported, (r = .36, p < .04), it should be noted that this was based on a sample of only 36 participants, so this finding should be interpreted with caution.

Ashburn-Nardo, L. (2018). What can allies do? In A. J. Colella & E. B. King (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of workplace discrimination. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Ashburn-Nardo, L., & Abdul Karim, M. F. (2019). The CPR model: Decisions involved in confronting prejudiced responses. In R. Mallett & M. Monteith (Eds.), Confronting prejudice and discrimination: The science of changing minds and behaviors (pp. 29–47). London: Academic Press.CrossRef

Ashburn-Nardo, L., Blanchar, J. C., Petersson, J., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2014). Do you say something when it's your boss? The role of perpetrator power in prejudice confrontation. Journal of Social Issues, 70, 615–636. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12082.CrossRef

Ashburn-Nardo, L., & Johnson, N. J. (2008). Implicit outgroup favoritism and intergroup judgment: The moderating role of stereotypic context. Social Justice Research, 21, 490–508. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0078-8.CrossRef

Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The confronting prejudiced responses (CPR) model: Applying CPR in organizations. The Academy of Management Learning and Education, 7, 332–342. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMLE.2008.34251671.CrossRef

Ayres, M. M., Friedman, C. K., & Leaper, C. (2009). Individual and situational factors related to young women’s likelihood of confronting sexism in their everyday lives. Sex Roles, 61, 449–460. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9635-3.CrossRefPubMedPubMedCentral

Baumeister, R., Chesner, S., Senders, P., & Tice, D. (1988). Who's in charge here? Group leaders do lend help in emergencies. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 14, 17–22. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167288141002.CrossRefPubMed

Blass, T. (1996). Attribution of responsibility and Trust in the Milgram Obedience Experiment. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 26, 1529–1535. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1996.tb00084.x.CrossRef

Brinkman, B. G., Garcia, K., & Rickard, K. M. (2011). “What I wanted to do was…” discrepancies between college women’s desired and reported responses to gender prejudice. Sex Roles, 65(5–6), 344–355. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0020-7.CrossRef

Bushman, B. J. (1984). Perceived symbols of authority and their influence on compliance. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 14, 501–508. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1984.tb02255.x.CrossRef

Casler, K., Bickel, L., & Hackett, E. (2013). Separate but equal? A comparison of participants and data gathered via Amazon’s MTurk, social media, and face-to-face behavioral testing. Computers in Human Behavior, 29, 2156–2160. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chb.2013.05.009.CrossRef

Cialdini, R. B., & Goldstein, N. J. (2004). Social influence: Compliance and conformity. Annual Review of Psychology, 55, 591–621. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.55.090902.142015.CrossRefPubMed

Clark, R., Anderson, N. B., Clark, V. R., & Williams, D. R. (1999). Racism as a stressor for African Americans: A biopsychosocial model. American Psychologist, 54, 805–816. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.10.805.CrossRefPubMed

Cohen, S. G., & Bailey, D. E. (1997). What makes teams work: Group effectiveness research from the shop floor to the executive suite. Journal of Management, 23, 239–290. https://doi.org/10.1177/014920639702300303.CrossRef

Cramer, R., McMaster, M., Bartell, P., & Dragna, M. (1988). Subject competence and minimization of the bystander effect. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 18, 1133–1148. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1988.tb01198.x.CrossRef

Crosby, J. R., Monin, B., & Richardson, D. (2008). Where do we look during potentially offensive behavior? Psychological Science, 19, 226–228. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.2008.02072.x.CrossRefPubMed

Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923.CrossRefPubMed

Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2006). Thinking well of African Americans: Measuring complimentary stereotypes and negative prejudice. Basic and Applies Social Psychology, 28, 233–250. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp2803_3.CrossRef

Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M., & Mark, A. Y. (2006). Standing up for a change: Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 784–803. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.784.CrossRefPubMed

Darley, J. M., & Latane’, B. (1968). Bystander intervention in emergencies: Diffusion of responsibility. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 377–383. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0025589.CrossRefPubMed

Deloitte. (2017). Missing pieces report: The 2016 board diversity census of women and minorities on fortune 500 boards. Deloitte Development LLC.

Feagin, J. R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public places. American Sociological Review, 56, 101–116. https://doi.org/10.2307/2095676.CrossRef

French, J. R., & Raven, B. H. (1959). The bases of social power. In D. P. Cartwright (Ed.), Studies in social power (pp. 150–167). Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research, University of Michigan.

Good, J. J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Sanchez, D. T. (2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of the self and others. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 210–226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684312440958.CrossRef

Grimes, A. J. (1978). Authority, power, influence, and social control: A theoretical synthesis. The Academy of Management Review, 3, 724–735. https://doi.org/10.5465/AMR.1978.4289263.CrossRef

Hamilton, V. L. (1978). Who is responsible? Toward a social psychology of responsibility attribution. Social Psychology, 41, 316–328. https://doi.org/10.2307/3033584.CrossRef

Hughes, D., Rodriguez, J., Smith, E. P., Johnson, D. J., Stevenson, H. C., & Spicer, P. (2006). Parents' ethnic-racial socialization practices: A review of research and directions for future study. Developmental Psychology, 42, 747–770. https://doi.org/10.1037/0012-1649.42.5.747.CrossRefPubMed

Hulin, C. L., Fitzgerald, L. F., & Drasgow, F. (1996). Organizational influences on sexual harassment. In M. S. Stockdale (Ed.), Sexual harassment in the workplace (pp. 127–150). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010.CrossRef

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00133.x.CrossRef

Kenney, R. A., Blascovich, J., & Shaver, P. R. (1994). Implicit leadership theories: Prototypes for new leaders. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 409–437. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15324834basp1504_2.CrossRef

Kerr, N. L., & Stanfel, J. A. (1993). Role schemata and member motivation in task groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 432–442. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167293194008.CrossRef

Landis, J. R., & Koch, G. G. (1977). The measurement of observer agreement for categorical data. Biometrics, 33, 159–174. https://doi.org/10.2307/2529310.

Latané, B., & Darley, J. M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help? Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice-Hall.

Lesane-Brown, C. L. (2006). A review of race socialization within black families. Developmental Review, 26(4), 400–426. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.dr.2006.02.001.CrossRef

Lindsey, A., King, E., Cheung, H., Hebl, M., Lynch, S., & Mancini, V. (2015). When do women respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety, form, and focus. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 45, 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12326.CrossRef

Milgram, S. (1963). The behavioral study of obedience. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 371–378. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0040525.CrossRef

Nelson, J. K., Dunn, K. M., & Paradies, Y. (2011). Bystander anti-racism: A review of the literature. Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 11, 263–284. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1530-2415.2011.01274.x.CrossRef

Paluck, E. L. (2011). Peer pressure against prejudice: A high school field experiment examining social network change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 350–358. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.11.017.CrossRef

Preacher, K. J., & Hayes, A. F. (2008). Asymptotic and resampling strategies for assessing and comparing indirect effects in multiple mediator models. Behavior Research Methods, 40, 879–891. https://doi.org/10.3758/BRM.40.3.879.CrossRefPubMed

Rasinski, H. M., & Czopp, A. M. (2010). The effect of target status on witnesses' reactions to confrontations of bias. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 32, 8–16. https://doi.org/10.1080/01973530903539754.CrossRef

Rucker, D. D., Preacher, K. J., Tormala, Z. L., & Petty, R. E. (2011). Mediation analysis in social psychology: Current practices and new recommendations. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 5, 359–371. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1751-9004.2011.00355.x.CrossRef

Schmader, T., Croft, A., Scarnier, M., Lickel, B., & Mendes, W. B. (2012). Implicit and explicit emotional reactions to witnessing prejudice. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 15, 379–392. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430211426163.CrossRef

Shaffer, D. R., Rogel, M., & Hendrick, C. (1975). Intervention in the library: The effect of increased responsibility on bystanders’ willingness to prevent a theft. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 5, 303–319. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1559-1816.1975.tb00683.x.CrossRef

Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–223. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00138.x.CrossRef

Smith, W. A. (2004). Black faculty coping with racial battle fatigue: The campus racial climate in a post-civil rights era. In D. Cleveland (Ed.), A long way to go: Conversations about race by African American faculty and graduate students at predominantly white institutions (pp. 171–190). New York: Peter Lang.

Swim, J. K., & Hyers, L. L. (1999). Excuse me—What did you just say?!: Women's public and private responses to sexist remarks. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 68–68. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1998.1370.CrossRef

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., & Ferguson, M. J. (2001). Everyday sexism: Evidence for its incidence, nature, and psychological impact from three daily diary studies. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 31–53. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00200.CrossRef

Swim, J. K., Hyers, L. L., Cohen, L. L., Fitzgerald, D. C., & Bylsma, W. H. (2003). African American college students’ experiences with everyday racism: Characteristics of and responses to these incidents. Journal of Black Psychology, 29, 38–67. https://doi.org/10.1177/0095798402239228.CrossRef

Taylor, P. J., Russ-Eft, D. F., & Chan, D. W. L. (2005). A meta-analytic review of behaviour modeling training. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 692–709. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.90.4.692.CrossRefPubMed

Treviño, L. K., & Victor, B. (1992). Peer reporting of unethical behavior: A social context perspective. Academy of Management Journal, 35, 38–64. https://doi.org/10.2307/256472.CrossRef

Walton, G. M. (2014). The new science of wise psychological interventions. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 23, 73–82. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721413512856.CrossRef

Woo, S. E., Keith, M., & Thornton, M. A. (2015). Amazon mechanical Turk for industrial and organizational psychology: Advantages, challenges, and practical recommendations. Industrial and Organizational Psychology, 8, 171–179. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2015.21.CrossRef

Titel: Who Is Responsible for Confronting Prejudice? The Role of Perceived and Conferred Authority
verfasst von: Leslie Ashburn-Nardo
Alex Lindsey
Kathryn A. Morris
Stephanie A. Goodwin
Publikationsdatum: 05.09.2019
Verlag: Springer US
Erschienen in: Journal of Business and Psychology / Ausgabe 6/2020
Print ISSN: 0889-3268
Elektronische ISSN: 1573-353X
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/s10869-019-09651-w

Springer Professional

Abstract

Bitte loggen Sie sich ein, um Zugang zu Ihrer Lizenz zu erhalten.

Sie haben noch keine Lizenz? Dann Informieren Sie sich jetzt über unsere Produkte:

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft+Technik"

Springer Professional "Wirtschaft"

Weitere Artikel der Ausgabe 6/2020

Personal Endorsement of Ambivalent Sexism and Career Success: an Investigation of Differential Mechanisms

Cross-Temporal Meta-Analysis: A Conceptual and Empirical Critique

A Psychometric Assessment of OCB: Clarifying the Distinction Between OCB and CWB and Developing a Revised OCB Measure

Fight and Flight: a Contingency Model of Third Parties’ Approach-Avoidance Reactions to Peer Abusive Supervision

Uncovering Relations Between Leadership Perceptions and Motivation Under Different Organizational Contexts: a Multilevel Cross-lagged Analysis

Built for unity: assessing the impact of team composition on team cohesion trajectories

Premium Partner