EXPECTING PREJUDICE CONFRONTATION TO BACKFIRE: PREJUDICE NORMS AND MISALIGNMENT BETWEEN FORECASTER EXPECTATIONS AND EXPERIENCER REALITIES

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.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

Cuing Disparities: The Consequences of Race-Based Social Stressors for Academic Achievement

Underrepresented racially and ethnically minoritized (URM) students contend with individual-level race-based stressors in college, like racialized discrimination and microaggressions. In this study, we consider whether URM students\u27 perceptions of racial inequity on campus—a context-level race-based stressor—trigger adverse psychological and physical stress responses that, in turn, undermine academic achievement. Using a sample of 781 science, technology, engineering and math (STEM) students, we found in a longitudinal study that URM students report perceiving more inequality on campus compared with White and Asian students. Greater perceived inequality was, in turn, associated with increased psychological and physical stress responses, which, in some cases, predicted lower grades. Promoting more equitable college environments, therefore, may help attenuate inequalities in stress responses, ultimately, enhancing academic achievement. Please refer to the Supplementary Material section to find this article\u27s Community and Social Impact Statement

Girls Are Good At STEM: Opening Minds And Providing Evidence Reduce Boys\u27 Stereotyping Of Girls\u27 STEM Ability

Girls and women face persistent negative stereotyping within STEM (science, technology, engineering, mathematics). This field intervention was designed to improve boys\u27 perceptions of girls\u27 STEM ability. Boys (N = 667; mostly White and East Asian) aged 9-15 years in Canadian STEM summer camps (2017-2019) had an intervention or control conversation with trained camp staff. The intervention was a multi-stage persuasive appeal: a values affirmation, an illustration of girls\u27 ability in STEM, a personalized anecdote, and reflection. Control participants discussed general camp experiences. Boys who received the intervention (vs. control) had more positive perceptions of girls\u27 STEM ability, d = 0.23, an effect stronger among younger boys. These findings highlight the importance of engaging elementary-school-aged boys to make STEM climates more inclusive

Underestimating the unrepresented: Cognitive biases disadvantage pro se litigants in family law cases.

The majority of civil cases in the United States involve at least one pro se party—more often than not, at least one litigant is unrepresented by legal counsel. Despite efforts to provide pro se parties with information that decreases the procedural complexity of litigation, wide access to justice gaps persist between counseled and pro se litigants. We argue that, while helpful, information alone is not enough to close access-to-justice gaps, because the mere presence of counsel gives represented litigants a persuasive edge over pro se litigants in the eyes of legal officials. Two randomized experiments with civil court judges (Experiment 1) and attorney-mediators (Experiment 2), wherein only the presence of counsel varied (while other case-related factors were held constant), found that legal officials, on average, devalued the case merit of pro se litigants relative to otherwise identical counseled litigants. This case devaluation, in turn, shaped how legal officials expected pro se (vs. counseled) litigants to fare as they sought justice. Judges, attorneys, and mediators forecasted that pro se litigants would experience the civil justice system as less fair and less satisfying than counseled litigants, especially when the dispute resolution mechanism was trial (vs. mediation). These results suggest that perceptions of case merit are strongly influenced by a litigant’s counseled status. Comprehensive solutions to address access-to-justice gaps must consider ways to reduce legal officials’ biased perceptions of pro se litigants, so that they are not underestimated before their cases are even heard

Where and With Whom Does a Brief Social-Belonging Intervention Promote Progress in College?

A promising way to mitigate inequality is by addressing students’ worries about belonging. But where and with whom is this social-belonging intervention effective? Here we report a team-science randomized controlled experiment with 26,911 students at 22 diverse institutions. Results showed that the social-belonging intervention, administered online before college (in under 30 minutes), increased the rate at which students completed the first year as full-time students, especially among students in groups that had historically progressed at lower rates. The college context also mattered: The intervention was effective only when students’ groups were afforded opportunities to belong. This study develops methods for understanding how student identities and contexts interact with interventions. It also shows that a low-cost, scalable intervention generalizes its effects to 749 4-year institutions in the United States