CONFRONTING RACISM AND SEXISM: WHO DOES IT AND HOW?
By
Jennifer S. Pratt-Hyatt

A DISSERTATION
Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Psychology
2012

ABSTRACT
CONFRONTING RACISM AND SEXISM: WHO DOES IT AND HOW?
By
Jennifer S. Pratt-Hyatt

Prejudice and discrimination continue to be societal problems, resulting in various negative
outcomes for targets. Confronting individuals who behave in a prejudicial or discriminatory
manner has been shown to be an effective means of reducing future acts of prejudice or
discrimination. Both members of the targeted group and individuals whose group is not targeted
can be effective confronters. Despite the utility of this strategy, little research has identified
predictors of confronting behavior. In Studies 1 and 2, participants observed a racist or sexist
hiring decision and had two opportunities to confront the perpetrator. The effects of target-group
membership, state negative affect, group identification, attitudes about prejudice, and
confronting efficacy on confronting behaviors were investigated. Study 3 used the same research
paradigm with the addition of a manipulation of the discrimination victim’s level of
identification. It was hypothesized that discrimination against a person who is highly identified
with his race would elicit less confrontation than discrimination against a less identified person.
Results and implications are discussed.

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

I would like to thank my mentor, Isis Settles, for her years of advice, feedback, and
unwavering support. I would also like to acknowledge the assistance of my committee members
(both current and former): Norb Kerr, Gwen Wittenbaum, NiCole Buchanan, and Debby Kashy.
I am especially grateful for my children, Genevieve and Theodore. They have been my
sunshine on some exceptionally cloudy days. I should also acknowledge my partner, Matt. He
made ice sometimes.

iii

TABLE OF CONTENTS
LIST OF TABLES ......................................................................................................................... vi
LIST OF FIGURES ....................................................................................................................... xi
INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1
What is confronting? ............................................................................................................3
Confrontation rates...............................................................................................................6
Costs and benefits of confrontation for targets of prejudice ................................................7
Costs and benefits of confrontation for non-targets of prejudice ........................................8
Situational factors associated with confronting prejudice and discrimination ..................10
Individual differences associated with confronting prejudice and discrimination ............10
Characteristics of the victim ..............................................................................................16
Overview of present research.............................................................................................17
Study 1 and Study 2 hypotheses ........................................................................................18
STUDY 1 METHOD .....................................................................................................................20
Participants .........................................................................................................................20
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................20
Measures ............................................................................................................................23
Confronting variables.........................................................................................................25
STUDY 1 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................27
STUDY 2 METHOD .....................................................................................................................33
Participants .........................................................................................................................33
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................33
Measures ............................................................................................................................34
STUDY 2 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................36
STUDY 3 OVERVIEW .................................................................................................................41
Study 3 Hypotheses............................................................................................................41
STUDY 3 METHOD .....................................................................................................................43
Participants .........................................................................................................................43
Procedure ...........................................................................................................................43
Measures ............................................................................................................................44
STUDY 3 RESULTS .....................................................................................................................45
OVERALL DISCUSSION ............................................................................................................51
Status as a potential target..................................................................................................51
Negative affect ...................................................................................................................52
Race and gender identity....................................................................................................53
iv

Just World Beliefs ..............................................................................................................55
Modern racism and sexism ................................................................................................56
Confronting efficacy ..........................................................................................................58
Racial identification of discrimination victim ................................................................60
Limitations .........................................................................................................................61
Future directions ................................................................................................................64
Conclusions ........................................................................................................................66
APPENDICES ...............................................................................................................................69
Appendix A - Overview of paradigm used in all studies ...................................................70
Appendix B - Job description ............................................................................................71
Appendix C - Information provided for each applicant .....................................................72
Appendix D - Cover letters and applications for discrimination victim in each study ......76
Appendix E - Application 1 Piloting Results .....................................................................88
Appendix F - Study 2 Application Piloting Results...........................................................90
Appendix G - Study 3 Application Piloting Results ..........................................................92
Appendix H - Piloted racist and sexist comments .............................................................93
Appendix I - Study 1 & Study 3 comment piloting results................................................97
Appendix J - Study 2 comment piloting results .................................................................99
Appendix K – Demographics...........................................................................................101
Appendix L - Negative affect ..........................................................................................102
Appendix M – Race/gender centrality .............................................................................103
Appendix N – Belief in a Just World ...............................................................................104
Appendix O – Prejudicial attitudes ..................................................................................105
Appendix P - Efficacy about confronting ........................................................................106
Appendix Q - Coding examples .......................................................................................107
REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................200

v

LIST OF TABLES
Table C1 – Study 1 – Confronting a racist hiring decision............................................................72
Table C2 – Study 2 – Confronting a sexist hiring decision ...........................................................73
Table C3 – Study 3 – Discrimination target who is highly identified with is race ........................74
Table E1 – Study 1 Application Piloting Results ..........................................................................88
Table F1 - Study 2 Application Piloting Results ...........................................................................90
Table G1 - Study 3 Application Piloting Results...........................................................................92
Table I1 - Study 1 & Study 3 comment piloting results ................................................................97
Table J1 - Study 2 comment piloting results .................................................................................99
Table Q1 - Coding examples .......................................................................................................107
Table 1 - Study 1 -Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables by Participant
Race...............................................................................................................................112
Table 2 - Study 1 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables ................................113
Table 3 - Study 1 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables by Race ..................114
Table 4 - Hypothesis 1A – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Race...............................................................................................................................115
Table 5 - Hypothesis 1A – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Race ..116
Table 6 - Hypothesis 1B – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
State Anger....................................................................................................................117
Table 7 - Hypothesis 1B – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by State
Anger.............................................................................................................................118
Table 8 - Hypothesis 1C – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Racial Identification ......................................................................................................119
Table 9 - Hypothesis 1C – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial
Identification .................................................................................................................121
Table 10 - Hypothesis 1D – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Just World Beliefs .......................................................................................................122
vi

Table 11 - Hypothesis 1D – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Just
World Beliefs ..............................................................................................................123
Table 12 - Hypothesis 1E – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Modern Racism ...........................................................................................................124
Table 13 - Hypothesis 1E – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Modern Racism ...........................................................................................................125
Table 14 - Hypothesis 1F – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................................126
Table 15 - Hypothesis 1F – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................................127
Table 16 - Hypothesis 1G – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction..................................128
Table 17 - Hypothesis 1G – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction..................................129
Table 18 - Hypothesis 1H – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ......................................130
Table 19 - Hypothesis 1H – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ......................................131
Table 20 - Hypothesis 1I – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................132
Table 21 - Hypothesis 1I – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................133
Table 22 - Hypothesis 1J – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ....................................135
Table 23 - Hypothesis 1J – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ....................................136
Table 24 - Study 2 -Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables by Participant
Race.............................................................................................................................137
Table 25 - Study 2 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables ..............................138
Table 26 -.Study 2 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables by Sex ..................139
vii

Table 27 - Hypothesis 2A – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Sex...............................................................................................................................140
Table 28 - Hypothesis 2A – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Sex ..141
Table 29 - Hypothesis 2B – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
State Anger..................................................................................................................142
Table 30 - Hypothesis 2B – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by State
Anger...........................................................................................................................143
Table 31 - Hypothesis 2C – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Gender Identification ..................................................................................................144
Table 32 - Hypothesis 2C – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Gender Identification ..................................................................................................145
Table 33 - Hypothesis 2D – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Just World Beliefs .......................................................................................................147
Table 34 - Hypothesis 2D – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Just
World Beliefs ..............................................................................................................148
Table 35 - Hypothesis 2E – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Modern Sexism ...........................................................................................................149
Table 36 - Hypothesis 2E – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Modern Sexism ...........................................................................................................150
Table 37 - Hypothesis 2F – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................................151
Table 38 - Hypothesis 2F – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................................152
Table 39 - Hypothesis 2G – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Gender Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................153
Table 40 - Hypothesis 2G – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Gender Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................154
Table 41 - Hypothesis 2H – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Gender Identification, Modern Sexism, and their Interaction ....................................155
Table 42 - Hypothesis 2H – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
viii

Gender Identification, Modern Sexism, and their Interaction ....................................156
Table 43 - Hypothesis 2I – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................157
Table 44 - Hypothesis 2I – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................158
Table 45 - Hypothesis 2J – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Modern Sexism, and their Interaction.....................................159
Table 46 - Hypothesis 2J – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Modern Sexism, and their Interaction.....................................160
Table 47 - Study 3 - Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables by Condition ..162
Table 48 - Study 3 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables ..............................163
Table 49 - Study 3 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables by Condition ........164
Table 50 - Hypothesis 3A – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Condition.....................................................................................................................165
Table 51 - Hypothesis 3A – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Condition.....................................................................................................................166
Table 52 - Hypothesis 3B – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
State Anger..................................................................................................................167
Table 53 - Hypothesis 3B – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by State
Anger...........................................................................................................................168
Table 54 - Hypothesis 3C – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Racial Identification ....................................................................................................170
Table 55 - Hypothesis 3C – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Racial Identification ....................................................................................................171
Table 56 - Hypothesis 3D – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Just World Beliefs .......................................................................................................172
Table 57 - Hypothesis 3D – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Just
World Beliefs ..............................................................................................................173
Table 58 - Hypothesis 3E – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Modern Racism ...........................................................................................................174
ix

Table 59 - Hypothesis 3E – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Modern Racism ...........................................................................................................175
Table 60 - Hypothesis 3F – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................................176
Table 61 - Hypothesis 3F – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................................178
Table 62 - Hypothesis 3G – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction..................................179
Table 63 - Hypothesis 3G – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction..................................181
Table 64 - Hypothesis 3H – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their Interaction .....................................183
Table 65 - Hypothesis 3H – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ......................................185
Table 66 - Hypothesis 3I – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................187
Table 67 - Hypothesis 3I – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their Interaction ................................190
Table 68 - Hypothesis 3J – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ....................................193
Table 69 - Hypothesis 3J – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by
Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their Interaction ....................................195
Table 70 – Summary of Statistically Significant Results ............................................................197

x

LIST OF FIGURES

Figure 1 - The Effect of Racial Identity on Instant Message Confrontation Strength among
White and Black Participants .....................................................................................120
Figure 2 - The Effect of Just World Beliefs on Overall Essay Tone at Low and High Levels of
Confronting Efficacy ...................................................................................................134
Figure 3 - The Effect of Gender Identification on Essay Response for Women and Men ..........146
Figure 4 - The Effect of Confronting Efficacy on Essay Confrontation Strength at Low and
High Levels of Modern Sexism ..................................................................................161
Figure 5 - The Effect of State Anger on Essay Response at Low and High Levels of Applicant
Racial Identity .............................................................................................................169
Figure 6 - Effect of Confronting Efficacy on IM Overall Tone at Low and High Levels of
Applicant Racial Identity .............................................................................................177
Figure 7 - The Effects of Just World Beliefs and Confronting Efficacy on IM Overall Tone at
Low and High Levels of Applicant Racial Identity ....................................................189
Figure 8 - The Effect of Just World Beliefs on Essay Confrontation Strength at Low and High
Levels of Confronting Efficacy ..................................................................................192

xi

INTRODUCTION
Intergroup bias can manifest itself through an individual’s attitudes about and behavior towards
outgroup members. Negative attitudes toward people based on their group membership are
defined as prejudice (Allport, 1954). These negative attitudes often lead to discrimination,
which is negative treatment based on group memberships. Thus prejudice and discrimination are
different forms of an underlying construct of bias against outgroups. The current research will
examine people’s responses to the expression of prejudicial attitudes via a discriminatory act,
thus literature on both prejudice and discrimination will be reviewed.
Research suggests that prejudice and discrimination continue to be pervasive problems in
U.S. society (Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Kessler, Mickelson, & Williams,
1999). Experiences of prejudice and discrimination are associated with negative outcomes, such
as chronic health problems, increased depression, and lower life satisfaction (Guyll, Matthews, &
Bromberger, 2001; Prelow, Mosher, & Bowman, 2006). Prejudice and discrimination can be
harmful even when one is not directly targeted. Research suggests that simply witnessing an act
of prejudice or discrimination against an ingroup member can negatively impact observers. For
example, women who work in an environment where other women are experiencing sexual
harassment report decreased job satisfaction and psychological outcomes, even after controlling
for personal experiences of harassment (Glomb et al., 1997; Miner-Rubino & Cortina, 2004).
Further, Miner-Rubino and Cortina (2007) observed these effects for both women and men who
witnessed sexual harassment. Given these significant implications, researchers have devoted
considerable attention to studying ways in which prejudice and discrimination can be decreased.
Direct confrontation – demonstrating resistance to a specific act of prejudice or
discrimination – has been shown to effectively reduce future prejudice and discrimination
1

(Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006; Kaiser & Miller, 2004). Although the majority of the research
in this area has focused on confrontation by victims (the individuals experiencing prejudice or
discrimination) and targets (individuals who belong to the targeted group, but are not themselves
victims), non-targets (individuals who do not belong to the targeted group) may be important
agents in prejudice and discrimination reduction as well. For example, many Whites played
active roles in the Civil Rights movement, some men consider themselves feminists and
participate in gender-related activism, and heterosexuals often label themselves as gay allies or
advocates. But despite their noteworthy presence in both historical and modern political
movements, these non-target activists have received little empirical attention. Thus, this research
focuses on both targets and non-targets.
Both targets of prejudice and discrimination and non-targets can successfully confront,
yet do not always choose to do so. With these studies I will explore the situational factors and
individual differences that predict choosing to confront (in this case, a discriminatory hiring
decision). I will focus on race- and gender-based discrimination as they continue to be pervasive
societal problems, influencing many women and people of color (Kessler et al., 1999).
I propose that, all else being equal, potential targets of a given form of discrimination will
be more likely to confront it than non-targets. Specifically, women are expected to confront
sexism more than men and Blacks are expected to confront racism more than Whites. However,
for both potential targets and non-potential targets, the individual’s affective reaction, along with
several individual difference variables, including group identity, belief in a just world,
prejudicial attitudes, and feelings of efficacy are expected to predict confronting. I will also
examine the effect that the discrimination victim’s level of identification with the targeted group
has on the confrontation behavior of others. Previous research suggests that men of color who

2

are highly identified with their racial group are liked less than less identified men of color
(Kaiser & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009). Building upon these findings, it is expected that people will be
less likely to confront discrimination that is directed at a highly identified Black man than
discrimination directed at a less identified target.
Following, I will review the literature on reactions to prejudice and discrimination by
both targets and non-targets and the relationship between level of identification and experiences
with discrimination. I will discuss the predictors and outcomes of confronting behavior and
propose two sets of studies aimed at furthering these areas of research.
What is confronting?
Confronting has been studied in many fields of research and has been operationalized in
many ways. Often researchers fail to offer any definition of what constitutes confronting in their
studies and participants are asked face-valid questions (e.g., Adams et al., 2003; Adams-Roy &
Barling, 1998; Good, Moss-Racusin, & Sanchez, 2012; Goldberg, 2007; Miller & Roloff, 2005;
Tisak & Tisak, 1996). For example, participants are often simply asked (in response to instances
of sexual harassment), “Did you take any action such as: reporting the incident or confronting the
perpetrator?” or (in response to hypothetical teasing or insulting comments), “How likely would
you be to confront your partner about what he or she said to you?” or “How compelled would
you feel to challenge what you partner said to you?”
When confronting is explicitly defined, the operationalizations vary across fields and
individual studies. Psychology researchers sometimes distinguish between assertive responses,
which “communicate one’s displeasure in a way that is visible to the perpetrator,” and nonassertive responses, which do not clearly convey one’s displeasure (Swim, Cohen, & Hyers,
1988, pg. 42). Examples of assertive responses include questioning the perpetrator (e.g., “What

3

is that supposed to mean?”), direct nonverbal responses (e.g., looks of disgust, shaking one’s
head), and direct verbal responses (e.g., explaining why the comment is offensive, “telling off”
the perpetrator). Examples of non-assertive responses include “laughing off” or ignoring the
comment, changing the subject, and leaving the conversation – none of which clearly express
one’s disapproval (Hyers, 2007).
Communication research on conflict management proposes several conflict resolution
strategies that are similar to the styles outlined by psychologists. Specifically, Sillars and
colleagues (Sillars, 1980; Sillars, Coletti, Parry, & Rogers, 2002) have identified three strategies
that people employ in ongoing, interpersonal conflict situations. People using the avoidance
strategy minimize acknowledgment of and communication related to the conflict, by denying the
existence of conflict, changing the topic of conversation, or making comments or jokes which
minimize the conflict. People who use the distributive strategy discuss the conflict in
competitive or self-focused ways. For example, they might criticize, blame, or reject their
partners and seek concessions from them. In a confrontation of prejudice or discrimination,
people who use this strategy might engage in name-calling or attempt to make the perpetrator
admit that s/he was wrong. An integrative strategy is one that focuses on information exchange,
relationship maintenance, and compromise. Using this strategy, a person might express
empathy, emphasize shared goals, and suggest mutually beneficial solutions to a conflict. Using
this strategy, a person who is confronting an act of prejudice or discrimination might seek to
educate the perpetrator or explain how his/her actions might make others feel. Another model
proposed by communication researchers identifies eight conflict handling styles, organized into
four major groups (Leung & Kim, 2007). Unassertive styles include avoiding discussion of
conflict or playing down its severity and accommodating the other party. Cooperative styles

4

emphasize integrating (seeking a win-win solution) and compromising (engaging in cooperative
bargaining). Aggressive styles include verbal domination and relational coercion to punish a
partner’s non-compliance. Engaging in deception or ingratiating to gain compliance are wily
styles.
As seen above, there are many areas of overlap in the various categorizations of
confronting behaviors. Confrontations can be either verbal (e.g., explaining why a comment is
inappropriate) or non-verbal (e.g., rolling one’s eyes). They can also vary in strength, ranging
from strong, direct confrontations (e.g., attempting to educate the person, demanding
concessions), to weak, indirect confrontations (e.g., questioning the other person, shaking one’s
head), to absence of confrontation (e.g., ignoring the problem, changing the subject). Stronger
confrontations convey more disapproval than weaker confrontations. Confrontations can also
vary in their underlying goals. Some styles or strategies are based on competitive or aggressive
goals (e.g., distributive strategies, aggressive styles) and others are based on goals of
relationship-maintenance, education, and cooperation (e.g., integrative strategies, cooperative
styles). An online, written communication paradigm will be used in these studies, therefore only
verbal (written) confrontations will be studied. Written statements will be coded for the extent
to which they are avoidant/non-assertive (not confronting), indirect/weak, or direct/strong. Both
indirect/weak and direct/strong statements will constitute confronting behaviors. Indirect/weak
statements will be those that have the potential to communicate disapproval, but that are oblique
enough that the other person may not perceive them as indicative of disapproval. Direct/strong
statements will be those that are overt enough that most people will clearly perceive them as
indicative of disapproval. Statements will also be coded for the extent to which they are
cooperative/helpful and aggressive/hostile. Similar to the integrative strategy and cooperative

5

style outlined above, statements coded as cooperative/helpful will be those that imply a desire to
inform, compromise, or maintain camaraderie with the other person. Similar to the distributive
strategy and aggressive style outlined above, aggressive/hostile statements will be those that
imply a desire to dominate, criticize, or punish the other person.
Confrontation rates
Several empirical studies have examined the frequency with which targets of prejudice
choose to confront it, though as with the literature previously described the operationalization of
confronting varies across studies. Swim and Hyers (1999) found that 45% of female participants
confronted, either verbally or nonverbally, a sexist comment made by a male confederate. Many
women who did not confront instead exhibited resigned acceptance. Some of those who
confronted the remark did so verbally by questioning the man about his remark, using humor or
sarcasm, or addressing the inappropriate remark directly (e.g., labeling it as sexist and asking the
man to change his behavior). Others responded in a non-verbal way, such as grumbling, making
surprised noises of disgust, or rolling their eyes. Similarly, Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001)
found that 48% of female participants chose to confront a male interviewer who had asked
sexually harassing questions. However, all of these confrontations took the form of politely
questioning the interviewer and would therefore be classified as indirect/weak confrontations
using the coding scheme outlined above.
Consistent with findings suggesting that racism is perceived to be less acceptable than
sexism (Czopp & Monteith, 2003), research suggests that targets of racism may be more likely to
confront it than targets of sexism. For example, in one study in which African Americans
retrospectively reported acts of discrimination they had faced, 66-73% of the reported incidences
had been confronted (Feagin, 1991). Many of the non-confronters chose to withdraw or exit the

6

situation, whereas others demonstrated resigned acceptance by remaining in the situation but not
addressing the discriminatory act. When confronting, targets often responded verbally by making
a mocking or sarcastic remark, attempting to educate the perpetrator, or making a straightforward request for an apology or behavior change.
There is much less research on rates of non-target confrontations. One would expect that
people who are less likely to be directly affected by a given form of discrimination would fight it
less frequently and intensely than individuals who belong to the group being discriminated
against. However, non-target individuals (those whose group is not directly affected by a given
form of prejudice or discrimination) sometimes advocate on behalf of those who are targeted.
Consistent with both of these propositions, one empirical study found that when exposed to a
sexist comment about women, 72% of female participants confronted it whereas only 45% of
men confronted the comment (Pratt-Hyatt, 2007). However, Gervais, Hillard, and Vesico (2010)
found that female and male participants were equally likely to confront a sexist comment.
Costs and benefits of confrontation for targets of prejudice
Research has demonstrated that confrontations by targets can be effective means of
reducing others’ levels of future prejudice and discrimination (Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006;
Kaiser & Miller, 2004). A successful confrontation can benefit not only the original target, but
potentially other ingroup members who may face less prejudice and discrimination in future
interactions with the perpetrator. Thus a target might confront, not only for themselves, but on
behalf of their social group. Confrontation can also lead to psychological benefits. Expressions
of prejudice often elicit negative affect among members of the targeted group and confronting
that prejudice can serve as a way to lessen the arousal or negative emotions that one feels
(Haslett & Lipman, 1997; Kowalski, 1996). Targets who choose to confront may also feel pride

7

or satisfaction as a result of behaving in a way that is consistent with beliefs they hold (e.g.,
related to egalitarianism or standing up for oneself and group; Kowalski, 1996; Swim & Hyers,
1999). Assertive responses are associated with feelings of agency and beliefs that one has been
effective (Hyers, 2007). On the other hand, people who experience prejudice and choose not to
respond often report regret, guilt, and self-directed anger, sometimes for several days after the
incident (Feagin, 1991; Shelton & Stewart, 2004).
However there are costs associated with confronting as well. Research suggests that
targets who confront prejudice are evaluated and treated less favorably by others (Dodd,
Giuliano, Boutell, & Moran, 2001; Garcia, et al., 2005; Good et al., 2012; Kaiser, Hagiwara,
Malahy, & Wilkins, 2009; Kaiser & Miller, 2001; 2003). These findings emerge even when the
evaluators know that the target is justified in her/his claim (i.e., that s/he did, in fact, experience
discrimination; Kaiser & Miller, 2001; 2003). Confrontations by targets may be seen as strategic
attempts to manipulate the situation for personal or collective gain (e.g., “crying prejudice,”
“playing the race card”), thus eliciting negative feedback from others. Additionally,
confrontation by targets may violate the prescribed social roles of that group. For example,
gender roles dictate that women are to focus on relationship maintenance and to put others’
feelings ahead of their own (Gilligan, 1982); confronting prejudice is inconsistent with these
expectations and may lead others to evaluate female confronters negatively. Similarly, targets
may fear that they will confirm stereotypes about their group by confronting (e.g., that they are
aggressive, selfish, oversensitive).
Costs and benefits of confrontation for non-targets of prejudice
As is true for targets, there are likely both costs and benefits associated with non-targets
confronting perpetrators of prejudice. There are theoretical reasons to believe that, compared to

8

targets, confrontations from non-targets may be even more likely to change the confronted
person’s behavior. Confrontations by targets may be seen as self-interested and manipulative,
thus perpetrators of prejudice may feel justified in dismissing the target confronter’s claims.
However, non-targets may be seen as less biased or less likely to have a vested interest and
therefore their claims may be given more attention (Petty, Fleming, Priester, & Feinstein, 2001).
Confrontations from non-targets may also be perceived as less normative and schema-consistent,
which may also lead to more cognitive processing on the part of the confronted person
(Channouf, Py, & Somat, 1999; Gigerenzer, Todd, & the ABC Research Group, 1999). Further,
Social Comparison Theory states that when deciding whether one’s own behavior is appropriate,
a person compares her/his attitudes and behaviors to those of similar others (Festinger, 1954).
Thus, this theory suggests that the confronter may be seen as more credible if s/he belongs to the
same group(s) as the confronted person.
However, the few empirical studies of the effectiveness of non-target confrontations have
produced inconsistent results. Czopp and Monteith (2003) found that White participants who
were asked to imagine hypothetical confronting situations related to racism reported more guilt
and less tension when the confronter was White than they did when the confronter was Black.
However subsequent studies of actual confrontations have suggested that Black confronters
elicited more distress among confronted White perpetrators (Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006;
Winslow, 2004) and that Black and White confronters were equally successful at changing
confronted people’s future behavior (Czopp et al., 2006).
In addition to the possibility of effective prejudice reduction, there are other potential
psychological benefits associated with confronting by non-targets. They too may experience a
sense of satisfaction or pride as they behave in ways that are consistent with their beliefs (e.g.,

9

regarding egalitarianism, helping, chivalry). Consistent with this notion, Pratt-Hyatt (2007)
found that men who confronted a sexist remark reported higher levels of pride than men who had
heard the remark and did not confront. However, there are likely costs associated with non-target
confrontations as well. As with target confronters, non-targets who confront a perpetrator of
prejudice might face negative evaluations and treatment. In the case of non-targets, this negative
treatment may be based on beliefs that the confronters have been disloyal to their ingroup or that
they have intruded into matters that are “none of their business” (Eichstedt, 2001; Eliasoph,
1999; Giroux, 1999).
Situational factors associated with confronting prejudice and discrimination
When witnessing an act of prejudice, an individual’s mood will likely influence whether
s/he will confront it. Confronting can be considered a form of activism and researchers consider
anger to be a fundamental predictor of activism (Adams, 1986; Hercus, 1999). Research has also
shown that people who have higher levels of trait negative affect ruminate over frustrations
longer and express dissatisfaction to others more frequently than people who are lower in
negative affect (Kowalski, 1993; Watson & Clark, 1984). One study found that male and female
participants who had confronted a rude or sexist comment reported more anger, hostility, and
upset than did non-confronters (Pratt-Hyatt, 2007). Some researchers posit that complaining or
confronting is a means through which individuals attempt to reduce negative affect (Hyers, 2007;
Swim & Thomas, 2006). Thus people who experience greater levels of negative affect,
specifically anger, in reaction to a prejudicial comment or discriminatory act may be especially
likely to confront it.
Individual differences associated with confronting prejudice and discrimination

10

Individual difference dimensions related to personal identity, prejudicial attitudes, belief
in a just world, and personal efficacy may also predict confrontation behavior. Identity centrality
is the extent to which a person considers a given group membership (e.g., race, gender) to be an
important part of the self (Deaux, 1996; Sellers, Rowley, Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997). For
targets, identity centrality is thought to be an important predictor of noticing and reporting
prejudice. If an act of prejudice is directed toward a group that a person feels connected to, the
act will be more personally relevant and upsetting. Perhaps not surprisingly, the first step in
confronting prejudice is to be aware of it (Feagin, 1991; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995) and
research suggests that targets of prejudice and discrimination often do not label their experiences
as being related to prejudice (Crosby, 1984; Feldman & Swim, 1998). However, targeted
individuals who are more identified with their group are more likely to notice and report
prejudice (see Major, Quinton, & McCoy, 2002; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001 for reviews).
Consistent with this, Pratt-Hyatt (2007) found that women who were more highly identified with
their gender were more likely to confront a sexist comment than less-identified women.
Similarly, identity centrality has been shown to predict political activism on behalf of one’s
group (Sidanius, Van Laar, Levin, & Sinclair, 2004). Thus, Black targets and women who are
more identified with their groups should be more likely to notice and confront racism and
sexism, respectively, than those targets who are less identified.
Far less research has examined the effects of identification with dominant or majority
groups (i.e., White identity; male identity; Knowles & Peng, 2005). White racial identity is
frequently considered a non-identity or an identity that few Whites are conscious of (Delgado &
Stefancic, 1997; Perry, 2001; 2007). However several studies have demonstrated considerable
variability in White individuals’ levels of racial identification (Knowles & Peng, 2005; Perry,

11

2007). Higher levels of White identity have been associated with the construct of “White guilt”
and antiracism activism (Eichstedt, 2001; Iyer, Leach, & Crosby, 2003; Knowles & Peng, 2005:
White & Burke, 1987), suggesting that highly identified Whites may be more likely to confront
acts of prejudice than less identified Whites. However, White identity has also been shown to
predict less favorable evaluations of people of color, more racist attitudes, and a greater sense of
“White victimization” (Pope-Davis & Ottavi, 1992; 1994; Sidanius et al., 2004; Wong & Cho,
2005). Other studies have found that White identity interacts with attitudinal variables to predict
both opposition to and support for affirmative action policies (Arriola & Cole, 2001; Lowery,
Unzueta, Knowles, & Goff, 2006). Thus there is reason to believe that higher levels of White
identity increase the relevance of race for White people. However, it is likely that White
identity, interacting with other variables such as attitudes about race and just world beliefs, could
predict both confronting and not confronting racism.
Similarly, male identity – the extent to which one’s identity as a man is an important
aspect of one’s self-concept – could be predictive of both confronting and not confronting acts of
sexism. One study found that men who were highly identified with their gender were more
likely than less identified men to sexually harass a female interaction partner after being exposed
to threats to their male identity (Maass, Cadinu, Guarnieri, & Grasselli, 2003). Cameron (2002)
found that men who were more identified with their gender reported more experiences of
discrimination. Cameron believes such discrimination claims are a defensive mechanism, aimed
at hindering attempts to increase equality between men and women. However, it is possible that
personal experiences with discrimination might engender sympathy toward others, even
outgroup members, who are experiencing discrimination. For example, Sellers and colleagues
(1997) posit that some African Americans adopt an “oppressed minority” ideology, believing

12

that African Americans and other groups who experience prejudice and discrimination should
advocate on each other’s behalf.
For both targets and non-targets, attitudes about privilege and prejudice are likely related
to confronting behavior. Individuals who believe that discrimination rarely occurs or that
prejudice towards some people is justified will be unlikely to confront unfair behaviors. People
who endorse a just world belief feel that individuals get what they deserve (Lerner, 1980: Lerner
& Miller, 1978). Research has shown that people who believe in a just world are more likely
than non-believers to justify group inequalities, perceive low-status individuals as incompetent,
and negatively evaluate a discrimination claimant (Dalbert & Yamauchi, 1994; Jost & Hunyady,
2005; Oldmeadow & Fiske, 2007). Just world believers are also less likely to demonstrate
sympathy toward the disadvantaged (Dalbert & Yamauchi, 1994). Thus, just world believers
may be less likely to confront prejudice than non-believers.
People who are less concerned about prejudice or who think it is acceptable are less
likely to take action to reduce it. In lab studies, people with egalitarian attitudes (i.e., those who
believe that all people deserve equal treatment) are more likely to confront prejudice than those
without egalitarian attitudes (Wellman, Czopp, & Geers, 2009). Attitudes related to specific
forms of prejudice (such as sexism and racism) are also likely associated with confronting. For
example, Pratt-Hyatt (2007) found that high scorers on a measure of sexist attitudes were less
likely to confront a sexist comment than low-scorers. The constructs of modern racism and
modern sexism – collections of beliefs and attitudes related to race and gender, respectively, in
modern U.S. society (McConahay, 1986; Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995) – may be relevant
to confronting. People who endorse modern racism believe that racism is no longer a serious
problem and that people of color have been become too demanding in their pursuit of equality.

13

People who endorse modern sexism have similar beliefs regarding women and sexism (Swim et
al., 1995). People who endorse these beliefs also feel that women or people of color use unfair
tactics and strategies to acquire resources, which are therefore perceived to be undeserved.
Modern racism is associated with less support for affirmative action (Awad, Cokley, & Ravitch,
2005), a higher propensity to engage in employment discrimination (Brief et al., 1995; Ziegert &
Hanges, 2005), and more negative reactions to contact with people of color (Nail, Harton, &
Decker, 2005). Modern sexism is associated with less support for affirmative action (Tougas et
al., 1995), the use of more sexist language (Parks & Robertson, 2004), and the belief that
biological differences explain job segregation (Swim et al., 1995). Based on these findings,
people with modern racist attitudes, who believe racism is no longer a problem, should be less
likely to confront an act of racism, whereas those who endorse modern sexism should be less
likely to confront an act of sexism.
Once a person notices an act of discrimination and evaluates it as inappropriate, there are
still barriers to confronting. Models of prosocial behavior state that a lack of efficacy often
prevents people from helping in situations in which they feel they should (Latané & Darley,
1970). Efficacy is the belief that one has the skills and resources necessary to perform a desired
behavior (Bandura, 1977; Woodruff & Cashman, 1993). Though little research has examined the
link between efficacy and confronting prejudice, efficacy has been associated with political
activism. For example, researchers have found that political activists report more self-confidence
and agency than non-activists (Kaysen & Stake, 2001; Romer, 1990; Stewart, Settles, & Winter,
1998; Werner, 1978). Consistent with the theory of planned behavior (Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977),
researchers have found that perceptions of discrimination and intentions to engage in activism
were more strongly predictive of actual activist behavior when participants also reported a sense

14

of efficacy (Foster & Matheson, 1995; Sherkat & Blocker, 1994). In addition, research has
demonstrated that activism can be increased through classes or other interventions that increase
efficacy (Stake, 2007). Research has also demonstrated that several traits that are similar to
efficacy are associated with activism. For example, studies have shown that participants with
incremental implicit theories (i.e., those who believe that individuals’ traits are malleable) are
more likely to confront acts of prejudice than those with entity theories (i.e., those who believe
that individuals’ traits for fixed). Further, it has been shown that when participants’ adherence to
incremental implicit theories is experimentally increased, the likelihood that they will confront
also increases (Rattan & Dweck, 2010). Presumably, individuals who ascribe to incremental
theories believe that their actions can have an effect on the other person’s (potentially flexible)
beliefs, thus they have greater expectations of efficacy than entity theorists. In the same way,
one can link optimism to efficacy. Both people with optimistic outlooks and high levels of
efficacy believe that their endeavors are likely to be successful. One study demonstrated that
women who reported higher levels of general optimism were more likely to confront an act of
sexism than were less optimistic women (Kaiser & Miller, 2004). Similarly, recent studies have
found that optimists with egalitarian attitudes are more likely to confront racist jokes than are
pessimists with egalitarian attitudes (Wellman et. al., 2009) and that women’s plans to confront
future discrimination were predicted by their current levels of optimism (Sechrist, 2010). This is
consistent with the idea that people are more likely to confront when they believe that they will
achieve the outcome they desire. Therefore, it is proposed that efficacy may be associated with
confronting individual acts of prejudice. People may feel that an act of prejudice is inappropriate
but if they perceive themselves as ill-equipped to do anything about it, they are less likely to
confront.

15

Characteristics of the victim
Thus far, hypothesized predictors of confronting behavior have been limited to
characteristics of the possible confronter. However, there may also be characteristics of the
victim of prejudice or discrimination that influence whether or not an observer will confront
these acts.
The level of identification displayed by the victim of discrimination is one characteristic
that may influence whether or not a person chooses to confront. There is evidence to suggest
that people who are highly identified with a disadvantaged group experience more discrimination
than their less identified counterparts. Numerous studies have demonstrated that women and
people of color who are more identified with their group self-report more experiences of
discrimination than people who are less identified (see Shelton & Sellers, 2003). These findings
are typically explained using internal attributions about the discrimination claimants. For
example, researchers have posited that highly identified people are more likely to interpret
ambiguous events as discriminatory (Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003; Operario & Fiske,
2001; Shelton & Sellers, 2000) or that experiencing discrimination results in increased
identification (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). However, recent empirical work
suggests that more highly identified people may actually experience more prejudice than people
who are less identified. In several studies, Kaiser and Pratt-Hyatt (2009) asked White
participants to evaluate an African American or Latino man after reviewing several
questionnaires that he had ostensibly completed. The man’s level of racial identity was
manipulated across conditions by varying his responses to a questionnaire assessing racial
identification. Results indicated that the men of color were evaluated less positively when they
indicated higher levels of racial identification than when they reported lower levels. This

16

relationship was moderated by participants’ endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs (i.e.,
beliefs that successes and failures in life are earned and that disparities between groups are
therefore fair). Those Whites who endorsed these beliefs evaluated the highly identified targets
less positively than less identified targets, whereas Whites who rejected status legitimizing
beliefs actually evaluated the highly identified targets more favorably than the less identified
targets. Extending these findings to the present research, it is suggested that people who witness
a woman or person of color being discriminated against will be less likely to confront the event if
the victim is highly identified with her or his group. This will be especially true for those who
believe disparities between social groups are fair.
Overview of present research
Prejudice and discrimination are serious societal problems and both targets and non-targets
may be able to successfully reduce individuals’ levels of prejudice and discrimination via direct
confrontations of perpetrators. However, because there are costs associated with confrontation,
many people choose not to address instances of prejudice (Stone, Whitehead, Schmader, &
Forcella, 2011). Identification of the situational factors and individual differences that predict
confronting behavior could lead to the development of strategies to encourage prejudice
reduction. In Study 1, Black and White participants were exposed to a racist hiring decision.
Participants had two opportunities to confront the manipulated comment (i.e., express
disapproval of it) and the outcome of interest was whether or not each participant chose to
confront the discriminatory act, and if so, the strength with which s/he did so. It was expected
that participant race, racial identification, belief in a just world, prejudicial beliefs, and efficacy
about confronting would predict confronting behavior. Although not a focus of this study,
confrontations will also be coded for implied goals (hostile/aggressive, cooperative/helpful). As

17

the analysis of these data was exploratory, no formal hypotheses were proposed for the coding
related to goals. Study 2 was identical to Study 1, only male and female participants were
exposed to a sexist hiring decision. Rather than race and racial identification, gender and gender
identification were expected to predict confronting (along with the other variables from Study 1).
The racist hiring paradigm was used again in Study 3, which also included a manipulation of the
victim’s racial identification. With this study, it was predicted that discrimination against a
highly identified Black person would elicit less confronting behavior from White participants
than discrimination against someone who was less identified with the target group.
Study 1 and Study 2 hypotheses
Because the hypotheses for Study 1 (racist hiring decision) and Study 2 (sexist hiring
decision) are similar, they are presented together. “Targets” will refer to either Blacks (Study 1)
or women (Study 2) and “non-targets” will refer to Whites (Study 1) or men (Study 2).
A. Target status (target vs. non-target confronting): It was predicted that members of
the targeted group (Blacks in Study 1, women in Study 2) who encountered a
discriminatory hiring decision would be more likely to confront and would confront
more directly (i.e., will convey more disapproval to the perpetrator) than would nontargeted individuals (i.e., Whites in 1, men in 2) who encountered the same situation.
B. Negative affect main effect: When controlling for trait negative affect, people who
reported higher levels of state negative affect were expected to be more likely to
confront and to confront more directly than people who reported lower levels of state
negative affect. State negative affect was not expected to interact with race or gender.
C. Group identification main effect: It was predicted that targets who were more
identified with their group would be more likely to confront and would confront more

18

directly than would targets who were less identified. No main effect was expected for
non-target identity, but interactions with other variables were expected.
D. Belief in a just world: It is predicted that individuals who more strongly endorsed a
belief in a just world would be less likely to confront and would confront less directly
than would individuals who rejected the just world belief.
E. Modern racism and modern sexism attitudes: It was predicted that individuals who
more strongly endorsed modern racist/sexist attitudes would be less likely to confront
and would confront less directly than less racist/sexist individuals.
F. Confrontation efficacy: Compared to people who reported lower levels of efficacy,
individuals who felt more efficacious about confronting offensive behavior were
expected to be more likely to confront and would confront more directly.
Interactions:
For both targets and non-targets, group identification was expected to interact
with belief in a just world and modern racism/sexism, such that highly identified
individuals who scored low on measures of belief in a just world (Hypothesis G) or
modern racism/sexism (Hypothesis H) would be especially likely to confront compared
with highly identified individuals who scored high on belief in a just world or modern
racism/sexism.
Efficacy was expected to interact with belief in a just world and modern
racism/sexism attitudes. Specifically, participants who rejected just world beliefs
(Hypothesis I) or modern racism/sexism attitudes (Hypothesis J) and reported higher
levels of efficacy were expected to be especially likely to confront.

19

STUDY 1 METHOD
Participants
One-hundred-thirty-four undergraduate students were recruited through the Psychology
Departments of two Midwestern universities. Six participants were excluded from analyses due
to protocol errors during their lab sessions (see discussion for details). This left a final sample of
128 participants. Forty-nine participants were Black (36.3%) and 79 were White (63.7%). There
were 31 men (24.2%), 96 women (75.0%), and one participant whose sex was unknown (0.8%).
Broken down by race and gender, the sample consisted of nine Black men (7.0%), 39 Black
women (30.5%), 22 White men (17.2%), and 57 White women (44.5%). The gender of one
Black participant was not reported (0.8%). They received either course credit or monetary
incentives for their participation.
Procedure (See Appendix A for an outline of the study procedures)
Participants completed online measures of trait negative affect, racial identification,
belief in a just world, modern racism, and confronting efficacy. In what was purported to be a
separate study, they were recruited to participate in an experimental session with up to three
other students. It was important that participants believed that there were other participants in
the study session whom they had not seen while waiting in the hallway. Therefore upon their
arrival at the session, participants were greeted by a research assistant who said, “Are you here
for the Hiring Decisions study? The one in room 89/1630? We’re running people in two
different labs for this study.” Participants were then escorted to a work station where they were
asked to read and sign consent forms. The research assistant then made a phone call that
participants were intended to overhear, during which s/he said, “Hey, we’re ready down here.
Are all of your people ready to start? OK, I’ll get them started.”
20

Participants were told that the researchers were interested in how group decision making
processes differ when they are conducted in-person and online. Therefore, they were being
asked to interact with another person online in a hiring decision task. Participants were asked to
imagine that they and their partner (working from the second study location) were two branch
managers of the same company who must hire an employee who would work with both
branches. Together, they would engage in this hiring decision five times, reviewing application
materials from three applicants in each trial. Participants did not know the race or sex of their
partners.
After reading a description of the position to be filled (see Appendix B), participants
were given five sets of candidate folders; three candidates were considered in each set of hiring
decisions resulting in 15 total candidate folders for participants to review. Each folder contained
a short cover letter and an application ostensibly submitted by a person seeking the position.
Some information was blacked out (i.e., the applicant’s name, phone number), presumably to
maintain the applicant’s privacy. The candidate’s sex and race were indicated on the application.
After reviewing all three applications in the first set, participants were asked to share their
thoughts about who should be hired with the other “branch manager” via an instant message
conversation. Specifically, they were asked to share the applicant they chose and provide a brief
explanation (e.g., “He had a lot more experience than the other guys.”) Participants were told
that the two partners must agree on each hiring decision, and if necessary, they were to discuss
the applicants further until they could agree on the hiring of one of the three.
In each set of the five trials, the participants were presented with applications of varying
strength: weak, average, and strong (as determined through pilot testing; see Appendixes C - G).
Stronger applicants had more education, higher GPAs, more experience, and/or more awards

21

than weaker applicants. The first trial consisted of two applicants who were White men and one
White woman. One of the men was clearly more qualified than the other two applicants and
participants were expected to reach consensus about this first hiring decision easily. On the
second trial, two of the three candidates were similarly qualified. They were both White men.
The third, weaker, candidate did not disclose race and gender. On this trial, the participant was
instructed to indicate his or her choice first and the confederate then selected the other similarly
qualified applicant, thus requiring them to discuss the applicants further in order to reach a
consensus. This was done so that one trial in which the pair does not agree occurred prior to the
key trial later in the study. The third trial consisted of two White women and one White man and
was structured such that the participant and the confederate were expected to both choose the
same (clearly strongest) applicant (one of the White women). On the fourth trial (the key trial),
the applicants were two White men and one Black man. The Black candidate had a strong
application (see Appendix D-F), one of the White men had an average application, and the other
White man had a weak application. The confederate chose the more qualified of the White men
and made a moderately racist remark when explaining his/her choice. During each session, the
remark was randomly selected from a pool of several remarks that had been chosen through pilot
testing (see Appendix H- J for more information about comment piloting). Given the
unstructured conversation style of the interaction, participants could choose to address the
confederate’s offensive behavior at this time. This was the first (of two) chances to confront the
discriminatory act. Confederates were trained to respond to any confrontations in a similar,
nonchalant manner across participants. Specifically, s/he responded with comments such as,
“I’m just giving you my opinion” or, “That’s just how I feel about it.” After letting the
participant make any desired comments, the confederate would say, “Fine, if you feel that

22

strongly about it, we can go with your guy.” They then completed the fifth hiring trial
(consisting of one White woman and two White men as applicants), on which they were
expected to agree on the strongest candidate (a White man).
Participants completed the state negative affect measure after Trial 4 in order to assess
their mood immediately after the racist hiring decision. In keeping with the cover story and to
minimize suspicion, participants also completed two other surveys during the hiring process
(after Trials 1 and 2). After completing all five trials, participants were told that the next part of
the study involved writing two essays/paragraphs and exchanging them with their partner (in
order to compare how their own perspective of the study differed from their partner’s). In the
first essay, they were asked to write about the logistical ease of carrying out the hiring task
online (intended only to continue the cover story and make the study’s purpose less obvious).
Then they were asked to write an essay about their impressions of their co-worker, ostensibly
because the researchers were interested in how people’s impressions of their partners influenced
the decision making process. The instructions presented to participants stressed that it was
important that they relay their honest impressions, not only for research purposes, but also
because their feedback might be useful to their partner in his/her future interactions. Because
they knew their responses would be sent to their partner, participants had another way to less
directly confront with this essay. After sending their responses to their partner via instant
message, participants were thanked, probed for suspicion, and debriefed.
Measures
Demographics. Participants were asked to indicate their race, gender, age, and whether
or not they were an international student (See Appendix K).

23

Affect. Affect was assessed with a twenty-item adjective checklist (Watson, Clark, &
Tellegen, 1988). Using a five-point scale, participants indicated the extent to which they felt each
adjective described them (1=very slightly or not at all, 5= extremely). When trait affect was
being assessed in the ostensibly unrelated study, participants were asked to indicate how much
each adjective typically described them. When state negative affect was assessed (during the
study session), they were asked to indicate how much each adjective described them currently.
See Appendix L for a complete list of adjectives. Factor analysis suggested the presence of five
factors. The one most relevant to the present hypothesis consisted of the terms amazed, angry,
disgusted, distressed, hostile, irritable, and upset, and was labeled anger. Scores on these items
were averaged to create trait anger and state anger scores, such that higher scores indicated more
anger. Cronbach’s alpha for the state version of this scale (assessed after the racist hiring
decision) was 0.91. Cronbach’s alpha for the trait version of this scale (assessed during a
purportedly unrelated online study) was 0.79.
Racial identification. The extent to which participants felt that their racial group was an
important part of their self-concept was measured with the centrality subscale of the
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (Sellers et al., 1997; See Appendix M) during the
online study). The scale consists of eight items, such as, “I have a strong sense of belonging to
people of my race.” Participants indicated their agreement with each statement using a sevenpoint scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) and their responses were reverse-coded as
needed and averaged to create a racial identification variable (Cronbach’s α = 0.86). Higher
scores on this variable indicated more identification with one’s racial group.
Belief in a Just World. Participants’ beliefs about the fairness of the world were assessed
with the six-item Belief in a Just World scale (Lerner, 1980; see Appendix N) during the online

24

study. An example item is, “In general, people get what they deserve in life.” Participants
indicated their agreement with each statement using a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree,
7=strongly agree) and their responses were reverse-coded as needed and averaged to create a
belief in a just world variable. The full version of this scale had low reliability (Cronbach’s α =
0.60), so factor analysis was used to create a modified scale (items 3, 6, 11, and 15 in Appendix
I; Cronbach’s α = 0.74). Higher scale scores indicated greater belief that the world is just.
Modern Racism. The Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986, see Appendix O) was
used to measure the extent to which participants’ believed that racism continues to be a problem
in society and was assessed in the online study. The scale consists of eight items such as,
“Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.” Participants indicated their
agreement with each statement using a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree)
and their responses were reverse-coded as needed and averaged to create a modern racism
variable (Cronbach’s α = 0.82). Higher scores on this variable indicated more racist attitudes.
Confronting Efficacy. Participants’ beliefs about how effectively they could confront
offensive people were measured in the online study with the six-item Confronting Efficacy scale
(Kaiser & Miller, 2004; see Appendix P). “I come across competently when confronting people
who are offensive,” is an example item. Participants indicated their agreement with each
statement using a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) and their responses
were reverse-coded as needed and averaged to create a confronting efficacy variable (Cronbach’s
α = 0.85) in which higher scores indicated feeling more able to confront.
Confronting variables
The instant message logs (referred to below as IM) and feedback essays (referred to
below as essay) from the lab study were coded to create several variables related to confronting

25

behavior. The author and one additional coder devised the coding scheme based on the study
hypotheses and themes present in the data. They then independently coded a sample of 10
participants’ data in order to determine reliability. After establishing adequate inter-rater
reliability, all instant message logs and essays were coded by a single coder (the author). It is
important to note that all coding was done before IM and essay data were linked to other study
data (i.e., data from surveys or the lab session). Therefore, coders had no knowledge of
participants’ race, gender, personality, attitudes, or study condition while coding, minimizing the
amount of bias possible in assigning codes relevant to the study hypotheses. Pearson correlation
coefficients between coders are reported in the variable discussions below. Unless otherwise
stated, variables were assessed in both the instant message conversations and the essays sent by
participants. Examples of instant message conversations and participant essays, along with their
respective codes, can be found in Appendix Q. Instant message conversations were coded for
confrontation strength and overall tone. Essays were coded for comment acknowledgement
(responded yes/no), confrontation strength, and overall tone.
Comment Acknowledgement (Responded: Yes/No). This variable indicated whether or
not the participant responded to the comment. A score of 1 was given if the participant
responded to the comment in any way. A score of 0 was given if the participant did not
acknowledge the comment at all. There was very little variability across participants for this
code in the IM conversations (95% of participants responded to the comment). All hypotheses
were tested with IM respond yes/no as a dependent variable. However, as expected given the
low variability, none of these analyses yielded significant results. Therefore IM respond yes/no
will be included as a dependent variable and will only be used for analyses of essay responses.
The correlation between coders was 1.00 for this variable.

26

Confrontation Strength. This variable represents the extent to which the participant
confronted the racist comment. Three coded variables were standardized and averaged to create
this variable: 1) assertiveness (1=unassertive/no confrontation to 3=strong assertion/direct
confrontation), 2) comment evaluation (1=expressed clear negative attitudes about comment to
4=expressed clear positive attitudes about comment; reversed before aggregating), and 3)
challenging (1 = not at all challenging of confederate to 3 = very challenging of confederate).
The IM version of this aggregated confrontation strength variable had a Cronbach’s alpha of
0.85. The Cronbach’s alpha for the essays is 0.79. The correlation between coders was 0.88 for
the IM variable and 0.91 for the Essay variable. Higher scores on the composite variable
indicated that the participant confronted more directly, more negatively, and with more
challenge.
Overall Tone. This variable represents the tone of the participant’s communication. Two
coded variables were standardized and averaged to create this variable: 1) cooperative/helpful (1
= not at all to 3 = very cooperative/helpful); and 2) friendly/hostile (1 = very friendly to 5 = very
hostile; reversed before aggregating). The correlation between these two variables was 0.47 for
the IM variables and 0.70 for the essay variables. The correlation between coders was 0.84 for
the IM variable and 0.69 for the Essay variable. Higher scores on this composite variable
indicated that participants confronted with less hostility and greater helpfulness.

27

STUDY 1 RESULTS
Descriptive data for each variable and correlations between variables can be seen in
Tables 1 - 3. Ninety-five percent of participants responded to the comment during the instant
message conversation. Twenty-one percent discussed the comment in their essays. Responses
varied greatly, but included outraged protests, cautious clarification-seeking, attempts at
education, explicit agreement, and laughter (“lol”). Coding results indicated that 23.7% of
participants evaluated the confederate’s comment negatively, 62.2% responded in a neutral or
ambivalent way, and 14.0% indicated approval or agreement with the comment.
Five dependent variables were used to test each hypothesis: IM confrontation strength,
IM overall tone, essay response yes/no, essay confrontation strength, and essay overall tone.
Logistic regression was used for the dichotomous variable (essay response yes/no) and linear
regression was used for the continuous dependent variables.
Hypothesis 1A stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by target status,
specifically that Blacks would confront more strongly than Whites. A dichotomous
(Black/White) race variable was entered as the sole independent variable in each of the five
regression analyses. There were no significant main effects of race on any of the dependent
variables (see Tables 4 and 5), thus hypothesis 1 was not supported.
Hypothesis 1B stated that state negative affect, controlling for trait levels of negative
affect, would predict confrontation strength. This hypothesis was supported for four of the five
dependent variables (see Tables 6 and 7). When controlling for race and trait levels of the
negative affect (i.e., anger) variable, participants who reported higher state levels of anger
confronted the confederate more strongly during the conversation and conversed in a more

28

negative tone. Further, people experiencing more anger were more likely to discuss the
comment in their essay and used a more negative tone in their essay.
Hypothesis 1C stated that members of the targeted group (i.e., Blacks) who are more
identified with their race would confront more strongly than those individuals less identified with
their race. This hypothesis was supported for one of the five dependent variables (see Tables 8
and 9). Specifically, there was a significant interaction between race and identification on the
IM confrontation strength variable. A simple slope analyses were conducted to determine
whether the slopes of these plotted regression lines were significantly different from zero (Aiken
& West, 1991). These analyses revealed that the line representing Black participants was
significantly different from zero (b = 0.38), t(117) = 2.77, p < .05), such that more identified
individuals confronted the racist comment more strongly than less identified individuals.
However, the line representing White participants was not significantly different from zero (b =
0.01), t(117) = 0.95, ns). Thus, racial identification was a significant predictor of IM
confrontation strength for Black, but not White, participants (see Figure 1). In addition, there
was a significant main effect of racial identification on essay response; however this relationship
was not moderated by race.
Hypothesis 1D stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by just world
beliefs, such that individuals who rejected such beliefs would confront more strongly than those
who did not. This hypothesis was supported for one of the five dependent variables (see Tables
10 and 11). When controlling for race, rejection of just world beliefs predicted a more negative
IM conversation tone following the racist comment.
Hypothesis 1E stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by modern racism
beliefs, specifically that individuals who rejected such beliefs would confront more strongly than

29

those who did not. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 12 and 13). When controlling
for race, modern racism beliefs were not related to any of the dependent variables.
Hypothesis 1F stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by confrontation
efficacy, specifically that individuals with higher efficacy beliefs would confront more strongly
than those with lower levels. This hypothesis was supported with one of the five dependent
variables (see Tables 14 and 15). Specifically, when controlling for race, participants who
reported more efficacy related to confronting offensive behavior used a more negative tone in the
essay they sent to the confederate.
Four specific interactions between variables were predicted. When testing interactions,
participant race and the centered variables of interest were entered into Step 1 of a regression
model. The interaction term (the product of the two centered variables) was entered into Step 2.
Hypothesis 1G stated that racial identification would interact with just world beliefs.
Specifically, it was predicted that for both Blacks and Whites, individuals who were highly
identified with their race and had lower endorsement of just world beliefs would be especially
likely to confront the racist hiring decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 16
and 17). The interaction between racial identification and just world beliefs was not related to
any of the confronting variables for Blacks or Whites.
Hypothesis 1H stated that racial identification would interact with modern racism.
Specifically, it was predicted that for both Blacks and Whites, individuals who were highly
identified with their race and endorsed lower modern racism beliefs would be especially likely to
confront the racist hiring decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 18 and 19).
As with just world beliefs, the interaction between racial identification and modern racism was
not related to any of the confronting variables for Blacks or Whites.

30

Hypothesis 1I stated that confronting efficacy would interact with just world beliefs.
Specifically, it was predicted that, for both Blacks and Whites, individuals who reported higher
levels of efficacy and endorsed lower just world beliefs would be especially likely to confront
the racist hiring decision. There was a statistically significant interaction between efficacy and
just world beliefs for one of the five dependent variables (see Tables 20 and 21). Specifically,
there was an interaction between confronting efficacy and just world beliefs on overall essay
tone. Simple slope analyses were conducted to determine whether the slopes of these plotted
regression lines were significantly different from zero (Aiken & West, 1991). These analyses
revealed that the line representing low values (-1 SD) of just world beliefs was not significantly
different from zero (b = -0.05), t(118) = -0.47, ns). However, the line representing high values
(+1 SD) of just world beliefs was significantly different from zero (b = -0.29), t(118) = -2.91, p
< .05). Thus, at low levels of just world beliefs, confronting efficacy did not relate to essay tone.
However, at higher levels of just world beliefs, confronting efficacy was associated with a more
positive (i.e., helpful and friendly) essay tone (see Figure 2). This pattern was not consistent
with the hypothesis, which stated that participants who rejected just world beliefs and felt
efficacious about confronting would use a more negative tone than other participants. Rather,
the individuals who differed from the others were those who endorsed just world beliefs and felt
efficacious about confronting. These participants used a more positive tone in their essays,
suggesting less confrontation of the discriminatory hiring decision.
Hypothesis 1J stated that confronting efficacy would interact with modern racism.
Specifically, it was predicted that, for both Blacks and Whites, individuals who reported high
levels of efficacy and endorsed lower modern racism beliefs would be especially likely to
confront the racist hiring decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 22 and 23).

31

The interaction between confronting efficacy and modern racism was not related to any of the
confronting variables for Blacks or Whites.
To summarize, Study 1 found that state anger was clearly related to confronting behavior.
Racial identification (among Blacks), just world beliefs, and confronting efficacy were
somewhat related, each predicting one of the five dependent variables. Further, there was an
interaction between confronting efficacy and just world beliefs, though the pattern of results was
not as predicted. Participant sex was not significantly correlated with any of the study
independent or dependent variables. Further, controlling for participant sex did not affect the
outcome of any of the above analyses.Study 2 will examine the same hypotheses in the context
of a sexist hiring decision, rather than a racist one.

32

STUDY 2 METHOD
Participants
Two-hundred-four undergraduates were recruited through the Psychology Department of
a large Midwestern university. Fourteen participants were excluded from analyses due to
protocol errors (nine participants), failure to follow directions (four participants), or suspicion (1
participant). This resulted in a final sample of 190 participants. Thirty-seven were men (19.4%),
131 were women (68.9%), and the sex of 22 was unknown (11.6%). The sample consisted of 13
Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (6.8%), 18 Blacks/African Americans (9.5%), 1
Hispanic/Latina (0.5%), 72 Whites/Caucasians (37.9%), 7 participants who were multiracial
(3.7%), and 79 participants whose race was unknown (41.6%). Broken down by race and
gender, the sample consisted of nine female Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (4.7%), four male
Asian Americans/Pacific Islanders (2.1%), 14 female Blacks/African Americans (7.4%), 4 male
Blacks/African Americans (2.1%), 1 Latina (0.5%), 56 female Whites/Caucasians (29.5%), 16
male Whites/Caucasians (8.4%), 7 female participants who were multiracial (3.7%), 44 female
participants whose race was unknown (23.2%), 13 male participants whose race was unknown
(6.8%), and 22 participants whose race and gender was unknown (11.6%). As in Study 1, they
participated in experimental sessions with up to three other students and received course credits
or monetary compensation for their participation.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to the one outlined in Study 1 except that the confederate
rejected a highly qualified female candidate in favor of a less qualified man. In explaining his or
her choice, the candidate made one of several moderately sexist remarks (see Appendix E for a
complete list). These remarks were piloted tested to determine their offensiveness and a pool of
33

comments was selected based on these data. The same fifteen applications used in Study 1 were
used for this study, but the race and gender of the applicants was changed to suit the sex
discrimination manipulation. Specifically, Trial 1 consisted of two White men and one Asian
American man. Trial 2 had two White men and one candidate who did not indicate race or
gender. Trial 3 had two White men and one Black man. Trial 4 (the key trial) consisted of two
White men and one White woman (who was the strongest applicant). Trial 5 had two White men
and one Black man).
Measures
Most of the measures and coded variables outlined in Study 1 (negative affect/anger, just
world beliefs, and confronting efficacy, essay response yes/no, IM /essay confrontation strength,
and IM/essay overall tone) were used again in this study, and are not described below. Below are
two variables that differed from Study 1. Cronbach’s alphas for all measures can be found in
Table 25.
Gender identification. Rather than racial identification, gender identification was
assessed using a modified version of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (Sellers et
al., 1997; See Appendix H). The scale consists of eight items such as, “My destiny is tied to the
destiny of other people of my gender.” Participants indicated their agreement with each
statement using a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree, 7=strongly agree) and their responses
were reverse-coded as needed and averaged to create a gender identification variable
(Cronbach’s α = 0.82). Higher scores on this variable indicated that the participant identified
more strongly with her or his gender.
Modern sexism. The Modern Sexism scale (Swim et al., 1995; see Appendix J) was
administered rather than the Modern Sexism scale. The scale consists of eight items such as,

34

“Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States.” Participants
indicated their agreement with each statement using a seven-point scale (1=strongly disagree,
7=strongly agree) and their responses were reverse-coded as needed and averaged to create a
modern sexism variable (Cronbach’s α = 0.88). Higher scores on this variable representing more
sexist attitudes.

35

STUDY 2 RESULTS
Descriptive data for each variable and correlations between variables can be seen in
Tables 24 - 26. Ninety-one percent of participants responded to the comment during the instant
message conversation. Twenty-six percent discussed the comment in their essays. Coding
results indicated that 34.0% of participants evaluated the confederate’s comment negatively,
55.1% responded in a neutral or ambivalent way, and 10.9% indicated approval or agreement
with the comment.
As in Study 1, five dependent variables were used to test each hypothesis: IM
confrontation strength, IM overall tone, essay response yes/no, essay confrontation strength, and
essay overall tone. Logistic regression was used for the dichotomous variable (essay response
yes/no) and linear regression was used for the continuous dependent variables.
Hypothesis 2A stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by target status,
specifically that women would confront more strongly than men. A dichotomous (men/women)
sex variable was entered as the sole independent variable in each of the five regression analyses.
There were no significant main effects of sex on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 27
and 28), thus hypothesis 2A was not supported
Hypothesis 2B stated that state negative affect, controlling for trait levels of negative
affect, would predict confrontation strength. This hypothesis was supported for three of the five
dependent variables (see Tables 29 and 30). When controlling for sex and trait levels of the
negative affect variable (i.e., anger), participants who reported higher state levels of anger
confronted the confederate more strongly during the conversation. Further, people experiencing
more anger were more likely to discuss the comment in their essay and confronted the comment
more strongly.
36

Hypothesis 2C stated that members of the targeted group (i.e., women) who are more
identified with their sex would confront more strongly than those individuals less identified with
their sex. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 31 and 32). There was a significant
main effect of gender identification on IM tone, such that individuals who were more identified
with their gender used a more negative tone during the IM conversation. However, this main
effect was not moderated by gender. In addition, there was a significant interaction between sex
and gender identification in the prediction of essay response (see Figure 3). However, post hoc
analyses indicated that there was not a significant effect for either men (b = -1.67, OR =0.19, ns)
or women (b = 1.58, OR = 1.17, ns). Thus, gender identification was somewhat predictive of
confronting behavior, but not in a sex-specific manner.
Hypothesis 2D stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by just world
beliefs, specifically that individuals who rejected such beliefs would confront more strongly than
those who did not. When controlling for sex, there were no significant main effects of just world
beliefs on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 33 and 34), thus this hypothesis was not
supported.
Hypothesis 2E stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by modern sexism
beliefs, specifically that individuals who rejected such beliefs would confront more strongly than
those who did not. This hypothesis was supported for two of the five dependent variables (see
Tables 35 and 36). Specifically, when controlling for sex, participants who rejected modern
sexism confronted the comment more strongly during the conversation and were more likely to
mention the comment in their essay response.
Hypothesis 2F stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by confrontation
efficacy, specifically that individuals with higher efficacy beliefs would confront more strongly

37

than those with lower levels. When controlling for sex, there were no significant main effects of
confronting efficacy on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 37 and 38), thus this
hypothesis was not supported.
Four specific interactions between variables were predicted. When testing interactions,
participant sex and the centered variables of interest were entered into Step 1 of a regression
model. The interaction term (the product of the two centered variables) was entered into Step 2.
Hypothesis 2G stated that gender identification would interact with just world beliefs.
Specifically, it was predicted that, for both women and men, individuals who were highly
identified with their sex and endorsed less just world beliefs would be especially likely to
confront the sexist hiring decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 39 and 40).
The interaction between gender identification and just world beliefs was not related to any of the
confronting variables. Hypothesis 2H stated that gender identification would interact with
modern sexism. Specifically, it was predicted that, for both women and men, individuals who
were highly identified with their sex and were lower on modern sexism beliefs would be
especially likely to confront the sexist hiring decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see
Tables 41 and 42). The interaction between gender identification and modern sexism was not
related to any of the confronting variables.
Hypothesis 2I stated that confronting efficacy would interact with just world beliefs.
Specifically, it was predicted that, for both women and men, individuals who reported higher
levels of efficacy and endorsed lower just world beliefs would be especially likely to confront
the sexist hiring decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 43 and 44). The
interaction between confronting efficacy and just world beliefs was not related to any of the
confronting variables.

38

Hypothesis 2J stated that confronting efficacy would interact with modern sexism.
Specifically, it was predicted that, for both women and men, individuals who reported high
levels of efficacy and low levels of modern sexism beliefs would be especially likely to confront
the sexist hiring decision. There was a statistically significant interaction for one of the five
dependent variables (see Tables 45 and 46). Specifically, there was an interaction between
confronting efficacy and modern sexism on essay confrontation strength. Simple slope analyses
were conducted to determine whether the slopes of these plotted regression lines were
significantly different from zero (Aiken & West, 1991). These analyses revealed that the line
representing low values (-1 SD) of modern sexism was not significantly different from zero (b =
0.14), t(32) = 0.90, ns). However, the line representing high values (+1 SD) of modern sexism
was significantly different from zero (b = -0.52), t(32) = -2.19, p < .05). Thus, at low levels of
modern sexism, confronting efficacy did not have a strong effect on essay tone. However, at
higher levels of modern sexism, confronting efficacy was associated with a weaker IM
confrontation (see Figure 4). This pattern was not consistent with the hypothesis, which stated
that participants who reported low levels of modern sexism and felt efficacious about
confronting would confront more strongly than other participants. Rather, the individuals who
differed from the others were those who reported higher levels of modern sexism and felt
efficacious about confronting. These participants’ IM confrontations were weaker than other
participants.
To summarize, as in Study 1, Study 2 found that anger was strongly related to
confronting a discriminatory hiring decision. Also consistent with Study 1, group identification
was related to one of the confronting variables among members of the targeted group (i.e.,
women). In addition, modern sexism was related to one of the confronting variables. There was

39

also a significant interaction between confronting efficacy and modern sexism. Study 3 utilizes
the same racist hiring protocol outlined in Study 1, but examines the role that characteristics of
the discrimination target can have on confrontations among observers. Specifically, the African
American target will display either high or low levels of racial identification. Recall that
previous research has found that men of color who are highly identified with their race are
evaluated less positively by Whites, especially those who endorse just world beliefs (Kaiser &
Pratt-Hyatt, 2009). Thus it is hypothesized that discrimination directed at the highly-identified
African American will elicit less confrontation than discrimination directed at the less identified
African American.

40

STUDY 3 OVERVIEW
Study 3 examined reactions to racist hiring decisions of candidates displaying varying
levels of racial identification.
Study 3 Hypotheses
3A. It was predicted that when the hiring discrimination was directed at a highly
identified African American it would be confronted less often and less directly than when
the discrimination was directed at a less identified person.
3B. Negative affect main effect: When controlling for trait negative affect, people who
reported higher levels of state negative affect were expected to be more likely to confront
and to confront more directly than people who reported lower levels of state negative
affect.
3C. Group identification main effect: It was predicted that targets who were more
identified with their group would be more likely to confront and would confront more
directly than would targets who were less identified. No main effect was expected for
non-target identity, but interactions with other variables were expected (see below).
3D. Belief in a just world: It is predicted that individuals who more strongly endorsed a
belief in a just world would be less likely to confront and would confront less directly
than would individuals who rejected the just world belief.
3E. Modern racism attitudes: It was predicted that individuals who more strongly
endorsed modern racist attitudes would be less likely to confront and would confront less
directly than less racist individuals.

41

3F. Confrontation efficacy: Compared to people who reported lower levels of efficacy,
individuals who felt more efficacious about confronting offensive behavior were
expected to be more likely to confront and would confront more directly.
3G. Group identification was expected to interact with belief in a just world, such that
highly identified individuals who scored low on measures of belief in a just world would
be especially likely to confront compared with highly identified individuals who scored
high on belief in a just world.
3H. Group identification was expected to interact with modern racism, such that highly
identified individuals who scored low on measures of modern racism would be especially
likely to confront compared with highly identified individuals who scored high on
modern racism.
3I. Efficacy was expected to interact with belief in a just world. Specifically,
participants who rejected just world beliefs and reported higher levels of efficacy were
expected to be especially likely to confront.
3J. Efficacy was expected to interact with modern racism attitudes. Specifically,
participants who rejected modern racism attitudes and reported higher levels of efficacy
were expected to be especially likely to confront.
Further, for Hypotheses 3B through 3J, the interaction between study condition (high
identification vs. low identification) and the hypothesis variable(s) were examined to see
if patterns depended on whether the target in the hiring decision task was highly
identified with his race.

42

STUDY 3 METHOD
Participants
Two-hundred-six White participants were recruited through the Psychology Department
of a large Midwestern university. Twenty-seven participants were excluded from analyses due to
protocol errors (18 participants), failure to follow directions (seven participants), or suspicion
(two participants). This resulted in a final sample size of 179 participants. Only White
participants were recruited because the aim of the study was to explore the confronting behavior
of majority members who witnessed an act of discrimination toward a minority member.
Twenty-nine participants were male (16.2%), 112 were female (62.6%), and the sex of 38 was
unknown (21.2%). As in Studies 1 and 2, they participated in experimental sessions with up to
three other students and received course credits or monetary compensation for their participation.
Procedure
The procedure was identical to the one outlined in Study 1, with the addition of an
applicant racial identity condition. As in the first study, the confederate rejected a more
qualified Black man in favor of a less qualified White man and made one of the racist comments
in Trial 4. However, for 92 (51.4%) participants, the Black candidate’s application implied that
he was highly identified with his race (e.g., he had a degree from a Historically Black College,
was involved with the NAACP, was a member of a Black professional association; see
Appendices C and D). The other 87 (48.6%) participants viewed an application that did not
indicate that the Black applicant was highly identified with his race (e.g., he had a degree from a
majority-White college, was involved with a political organization unrelated to race, was a
member of a professional organization unrelated to race). The applications of the other 14
candidates were identical to the ones used in Study 1.
43

Measures
All of the measures and coded variables outlined in Study 1 (negative affect/anger, racial
identification, just world beliefs, modern racism, confronting efficacy, essay response yes/no, IM
confrontation strength, essay confrontation strength, IM overall tone, and essay overall tone)
were used again in this study. See Tables 48 for Cronbach’s alphas.

44

STUDY 3 RESULTS
Descriptive data for each variable and correlations between variables can be seen in
Tables 47 - 49. Ninety-six percent of participants responded to the comment during the instant
message conversation. Twenty-five percent discussed the comment in their essays. Coding
results indicated that 26.5% of participants evaluated the confederate’s comment negatively,
59.1% responded in a neutral or ambivalent way, and 14.5% indicated approval or agreement
with the comment.
As in Studies 1 and 2, five dependent variables were used to test each hypothesis: IM
confrontation strength, IM overall tone, essay response yes/no, essay confrontation strength, and
essay overall tone. Logistic regression was used for the dichotomous variable (essay response
yes/no) and linear regression was used for the continuous dependent variables. In addition to
testing main effects, interactions between condition and each independent variable were also
tested.
Hypothesis 3A stated that when the hiring discrimination was directed at a highly
identified African American it would be confronted less strongly than when the discrimination
was directed at a less identified person. A dichotomous condition variable (low racial identity
candidate/high racial identity candidate) was entered as the sole independent variable in each of
the five regression analyses. There were no significant main effects of racial identity condition
on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 50 and 51), thus hypothesis 3A was not supported.
Hypothesis 3B stated that state negative affect, controlling for trait levels of negative
affect, would predict confrontation strength. This hypothesis was supported for four of the five
dependent variables (see Tables 52 and 53). When controlling for condition and trait levels of
the negative affect (i.e., anger) variable, participants who reported higher state levels of anger
45

confronted the confederate more strongly during the conversation and with a more negative tone.
Further, people experiencing more anger were more likely to discuss the comment in their essay
and used a more negative tone in their essays. In addition, there was a significant interaction
between condition and anger in predicting the essay response variable. Post hoc analyses
indicated that anger was a significant predictor of essay response in the high racial identity
condition (b = 4.78, OR = 118.61, p < .05), but not in the low racial identity condition (b = 0.65,
OR = 1.11, ns). Participants who were in the high racial identity condition and experienced high
levels of anger were especially likely to mention the racist comment in their essays compared to
other participants (see Figure 5).
In Studies 1 and 2, hypothesis C stated that members of the targeted group (i.e., African
Americans/women) who are more identified with their race/sex would confront more strongly
than those individuals who were less identified with their race/sex. In this study, all participants
were White and the discrimination target was Black. However, these analyses were run for
explorative purposes. As can be seen in Tables 54 and 55, White racial identification did not
predict any of the confronting variables in this study, nor were there any significant interactions
with racial identification and study condition.
Hypothesis 3D stated that confronting behavior would be predicted by just world beliefs,
specifically that individuals who rejected such beliefs would confront more strongly than those
who did not. When controlling for condition, there were no significant main effects of just world
beliefs on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 56 and 57), thus this hypothesis was not
supported. In addition, there were no significant interactions between study condition and just
world beliefs.

46

Hypothesis 3E stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by modern racism
beliefs, specifically that individuals who rejected such beliefs would confront more strongly than
those who did not. When controlling for condition, there were no significant main effects of
modern racism on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 58 and 59), thus this hypothesis
was not supported. In addition, there were no significant interactions between study condition
and modern racism attitudes.
Hypothesis 3F stated that confrontation strength would be predicted by confrontation
efficacy, specifically that individuals with higher efficacy beliefs would confront more strongly
than those with lower levels. When controlling for condition, there were no significant main
effects of confronting efficacy on any of the dependent variables (see Tables 60 and 61). There
was a significant interaction between condition and confronting efficacy in predicting state IM
overall tone (see Figure 6). However, an analysis of simple slopes failed to yielded significant
results for either the low identity condition (b = 0.29), t(72) = 1.75, ns) or the high identity
condition (b = -0.19), t(72) = -1.49, ns).
Four additional interactions between variables were predicted. When testing interactions,
study condition and the centered-variables of interest were entered into Step 1 of a regression
model. The interaction term (the product of the two centered variables) was entered into Step 2.
Hypothesis 3G stated that racial identification would interact with just world beliefs.
Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who were highly identified with their race and
reported low levels of just world beliefs would be especially likely to confront the racist hiring
decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 62 and 63). In addition, study
condition did not interact with participant racial identification or just world beliefs, and the three-

47

way interaction between study condition, participant racial identification, and just world beliefs
was also not significant.
Hypothesis 3H stated that racial identification would interact with modern racism.
Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who were highly identified with their race and
reported low levels of modern racism would be especially likely to confront the racist hiring
decision. This hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 64 and 65). In addition, study
condition did not interact with participant racial identification or modern racism, and the threeway interaction between study condition, participant racial identification, and modern racism
was also not significant.
Hypothesis 3I stated that confronting efficacy would interact with just world beliefs.
Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who reported higher levels of efficacy and low
levels of just world beliefs would be especially likely to confront the racist hiring decision. This
hypothesis was supported for one of the five dependent variables (see Tables 66 and 67).
Specifically, there was a statistically significant interaction between confronting efficacy and just
world beliefs on essay confrontation strength. Simple slope analyses were conducted to
determine whether the slopes of these plotted regression lines were significantly different from
zero (Aiken & West, 1991). These analyses revealed that the line representing high values (+1
SD) of just world beliefs was not significantly different from zero (b = -0.27, t(24) = -1.67, ns).
However, the line representing low values (-1 SD) of just world beliefs was significantly
different from zero (b = 0.58, t(24) = 2.45, p < .05). Thus, at higher levels of just world beliefs,
confronting efficacy did not have a strong effect on essay tone. However, at lower levels of just
world beliefs, confronting efficacy was associated with a stronger essay confrontation (see
Figure 8). This pattern is consistent with the hypothesis, which stated that participants who

48

rejected just world beliefs and felt efficacious about confronting would confront more strongly
than other participants.
In addition, there was a significant three-way interaction between confronting efficacy,
just world beliefs, and condition (see Figure 7). Simple slope analyses revealed that the lines
representing high values (+1 SD) of just world beliefs were not significantly different from zero
when efficacy beliefs were low (line 1; (b = -0.10), t(72) = -0.49, ns) or high (line 3; b = -0.01),
t(72) = -0.05, ns). The lines representing low values of just world beliefs were significant for
both low levels of efficacy (line 2; (b = 0.75), t(72) = 2.66, p < .05) and high levels of efficacy
(line 3; b = -0.54), t(72) = -2.64, p < .05). Line 2 (low efficacy, low just world beliefs) was
significantly different from line 1 (t(72) = -2.27, p < .05)), line 3 (t(72) = -2.25 p < .05), and line
4 (t(72) = -3.33, p < .05)). The remaining lines were not significantly different from each other.
Thus for participants who reported high levels of just world beliefs, their IM tone was not
associated with their efficacy levels or the racial identity of the applicant. However, when
participants rejected just world beliefs, their confrontation efficacy interacted with study
condition to predict their IM tone. Specifically, among participants with low just world beliefs,
those with low levels of efficacy used a friendlier tone when the discrimination target was highly
identified with his race and a less friendly tone when he was less identified with his race.
However, participants who rejected just world beliefs and had higher levels of efficacy were
friendlier when the target was weakly identified and less friendly when he was strongly
identified. This pattern of results is somewhat inconsistent with study hypotheses, which will be
addressed at length in the discussion section.
Hypothesis 3J stated that confronting efficacy would interact with modern racism.
Specifically, it was predicted that individuals who reported high levels of efficacy and low levels

49

of modern racism would be especially likely to confront the racist hiring decision. This
hypothesis was not supported (see Tables 68 and 69). In addition, study condition did not
interact with confronting efficacy or modern racism, and the three-way interaction between study
condition, confronting efficacy, and modern racism was also not significant.
To summarize, there were no main effects of study condition, thus the racial
identification of the discrimination target did not predict confronting behavior as predicted. As in
Studies 1 and 2, Study 3 found that anger was a strong predictor of confronting behavior. An
interaction between anger and condition indicated that anger was especially predictive in the
high racial identity condition. There were no main effects of (White) racial identification, just
world beliefs, modern racism, or confrontation efficacy. However, there was a significant
interaction between just world beliefs and efficacy, such that participants who rejected just world
beliefs and reported high levels of efficacy confronted especially strongly. This pattern was
further moderated by condition in a three-way interaction predicting IM tone.

50

OVERALL DISCUSSION
In three studies, participants worked with a confederate partner on a hiring decision task.
During the course of the task, the confederate selected a less-qualified White man over a Black
man or White woman, and made a racist/sexist comment in explaining the choice. Participants
could respond instantly via instant message or later during a partner essay exchange. It was
hypothesized that several situational and individual difference variables would predict the extent
to which participants confronted their partner’s discriminatory behavior. See Table 70 for a
summary of the statistically significant results from each study.
Status as a potential target
It was hypothesized that participants who belonged to the same race/gender group as the
discrimination target would confront more strongly than non-ingroup participants. It was
thought that, as potential targets of such discrimination, these participants would be more likely
to notice and react to that particular form of discrimination than would participants who were not
potential targets. This hypothesis was not supported in either of the studies in which it was
explored. Specifically, the confronting behavior of Black participants was not significantly
different than the confronting behavior of White participants in Study 1 and the confronting
behavior of women was not significantly different than the confronting behavior of men in Study
2. There are several reasons why the expected effects may not have been found. As outlined in
the introduction, most studies of confronting behavior have examined samples of victims or
potential victims (e.g., women, people of color). Very few studies have studied confronting
among samples that are not possible targets of the discrimination (e.g., men, Whites): potential
allies. Thus, the rate at which non-targets confront compared to targets is not well established. It
is of note that in these studies, (contrary to hypotheses) group membership did not affect
51

confrontation rates or confrontation strength. That is, in Study 1, there were no significant
differences between Blacks and Whites on any of the confrontation variables (see Tables 4 and
5), nor were there any between women and men in study 2 (see Tables 27 and 28).
Perhaps non-targets confront on behalf of others more than would be expected. It may be
that potential targets and non-targets confront at similar rates, but for different reasons. For
example, potential targets may confront discrimination against ingroup members because of
previous personal experiences with discrimination, fears of future victimization, loyalty to
ingroup members, or an enhanced awareness of the presence and consequences of discrimination
(Feagin, 1991; Hyers, 2007; Kowalski, 1996; Shelton & Stewart, 2004; Swim & Hyers, 1999).
On the other hand, non-targets may confront because they hold egalitarian attitudes, feel guilt
about their privileged status, want to appear virtuous, or have had experiences and relationships
with target group members that left them aware of the presence and consequences of
discrimination (Eichstedt, 2001; Iyer et al., 2003; Knowles & Peng, 2005: Pratt-Hyatt, 2007;
White & Burke, 1987). The remaining hypotheses can shed some light on these speculations, but
the motivation of non-target confronters remains an area of study that researchers should explore.
Negative affect
Past work has suggested that negative affect may play a significant role in activism
behaviors, such as discrimination confrontation (Adams, 1986; Hercus, 1999; Pratt-Hyatt, 2007).
Thus it was predicted that, when controlling for trait levels of negative affect, participants who
reported high levels of state negative affect immediately after the discriminatory hiring decision
would be especially likely to confront. This hypothesis was tested across the three present
studies and was strongly supported. Of the 15 analyses involving negative affect, 11 were
statistically significant. Participants who reported higher levels of negative affect, specifically

52

anger, were more likely to mention the comment in their essays, confronted the participant more
strongly via instant messaging and the essay to be exchanged, and used a more negative tone
with the confederate. These findings seem to confirm that negative affect plays an important role
in the confronting process. Recall that the affect variable was comprised of participants’ selfratings on the terms amazed, angry, disgusted, distressed, hostile, irritable, and upset. Most of
these terms are of negative valence and positive arousal, and is likely that both dimensions are
important in eliciting confrontation. It is unlikely that participants who were experiencing
emotions that were of positive valence and positive arousal (i.e., excited) or emotions that were
of negative valence and negative arousal (i.e., timid) would be moved to confront. Because these
affect data were collected immediately after the key hiring trial, it is not entirely clear how
negative affect is related to confronting behavior. It could be that the experience of negative
affect causes the participants to confront, but it is also possible that the experience of confronting
causes negative affect. Future studies could further explore this process by utilizing real-time
measures of affect (perhaps physiological data or coded facial responses) or by manipulating
affect during situations during which a person may or may not choose to confront discrimination.
It is worth noting that, contrary to the theories proposed by other researchers (Hyers, 2007; Swim
& Thomas, 2006), confronting discrimination does not seem to have reduced or alleviated
participants’ negative affect (at least not in the short-term).
Race and gender identity
Many researchers have suggested that race and gender identity play an important role in
the process of discrimination confrontation. It has been suggested that those people who are
more highly identified with their race or gender are more likely to notice group-based
discrimination (Major et al., 2002; Schmitt & Branscombe, 2001) and are more likely to respond

53

to it (Pratt-Hyatt, 2007; Sidanius et al., 2004). Thus it was predicted that highly-identified
Blacks (Study 1) and highly-identified women (Study 2) would be especially likely to confront
discrimination against an ingroup member. This hypothesis was somewhat supported. Highlyidentified Blacks confronted more strongly during the IM conversation than did less-identified
Blacks in Study 1. The lack of significant findings for other variables and for gender
identification in Study 2 suggests that identification with the targeted group did not play a strong
role in predicting confronting behavior.
Much less discussed in past research is the role of group-identification on confronting
among non-targets. In these studies, no direct relationship was found between non-target group
identification (i.e., Whites in Studies 1 and 3, men in Study 2) and any of the confronting
variables. Further, group identification was not found to interact with just world beliefs or
modern racism/sexism as predicted. As discussed in the introduction, majority group
identification can take several forms. For example, a White supremacist who actively
discriminates against people of color and a White social justice activist who actively campaigns
on behalf of people of color are both likely to report high levels of racial identification. This is
why majority group identification was hypothesized to interact with attitudinal variables (i.e.,
belief in a just world, modern racism/sexism) in predicting confronting. Although these
interactions yielded null results, future studies may be able to better disentangle the different
forms of majority group identification, perhaps by testing its interaction with different attitudinal
variables. It is also important to note that the measures of group identification used in these
studies were initially created for African Americans (i.e., racial identification) and women (i.e.,
gender identification). It is possible that their adaptation for White and male samples is not
appropriate, and the development of group-specific measures is required. In addition to these

54

modifications to identification measurement, researchers could attempt to experimentally
manipulate group identification and note the effects in confronting situations.
Just World Beliefs
Past research has shown that individuals who reject just world beliefs are less tolerant of
inequalities between groups (Dalbert & Yamauchi, 1994; Jost & Hunyady, 2005; Oldmeadow &
Fiske, 2007). Thus it was hypothesized that individuals who rejected the idea that the world is
fair and just would be especially likely to confront an act of discrimination. This hypothesis
received minimal support in these studies. Specifically, individuals who rejected just world
beliefs used a more negative tone during the IM conversation to confront racism (Study 1).
However, analyses of 14 additional confronting variables across the three studies failed to find a
relationship between just world beliefs and confronting. Nevertheless, just world beliefs were
found to interact with confrontation efficacy in both Studies 1 and 3. In Study 1, confronting
efficacy seemed particularly important at higher levels of just world beliefs (such that individuals
who believed in a just world and felt efficacious about confronting used a more positive tone
than individuals who reported less efficacy). Though hypotheses were focused on individuals
rejecting just world beliefs, this pattern of results does fit general predictions, such that weaker
confrontations would be expected from those endorsing just world beliefs. In addition, efficacy
could be considered a magnifier of one’s likely behavior, be it confronting or endorsing the
partner’s behavior. The pattern of results observed in Study 3 is consistent with hypotheses as
they were originally stated. Specifically, efficacy was predictive at lower levels of just world
beliefs (with those participants who rejected just world beliefs and reported more efficacy
confronting more strongly than participants who reported less efficacy).

55

Though these interactions were consistent with predictions, the overall effect of just
world beliefs was weaker than predicted. This may be explained, in part, by a poorly-performing
belief in a just world scale. The full scale yielded unacceptably low internal consistency, and
even the improved, shorter scale demonstrated low reliabilities. Future studies should test the
continued effectiveness of this now 32-year-old measure (Lerner, 1980). Additional support of
these hypotheses may be found with a more modern and reliable measure of just world beliefs. It
is also possible that this construct is not especially predictive of confronting behavior and that
other measures, such as social dominance orientation (Sidanius & Pratto, 2001) or right-wing
authoritarianism (Altemeyer, 1998) may yield more significant results.
Note that all of the significant findings related to just world beliefs were associated with
the racist hiring decisions. Just world beliefs yielded no significant main effects or interactions
in the study related to sexism (Study 2). It is possible that just world beliefs are more relevant to
acts of racism and that one’s beliefs about fairness are not called into play when considering
potential acts of sexism. Given that women have not traditionally been involved in the
workplace may lead people to view discrimination against them as more expected and tolerable.
Thus one’s beliefs about justice may be less relevant in workplace contexts involving genderrelated decision making.
Modern racism and sexism
Past studies have found that individuals who believe that race- and gender-based
discrimination are no longer prevalent are more likely to engage in discriminatory behavior, are
less supportive of measures aimed at reducing discrimination, and have more negative reactions
to people of color/women (Awad et al., 2005; Brief et al., 1995; Nail et al., 2005; Parks &
Robertson, 2004; Tougas et al., 1995; Ziegert & Hanges, 2005). Therefore, it was predicted that

56

individuals who espoused modern racist or sexist views would be significantly less likely to
confront the discriminatory hiring decision than would those individuals who rejected such
beliefs. This hypothesis was not supported as it relates to modern racism. In Studies 1 and 3,
modern racism was not predictive of any of the confronting variables. Nor did it interact with
racial identity (Studies 1 and 3), confronting efficacy (Studies1 and 3), or target racial
identification condition (Study 3). The hypothesis was somewhat supported in Study 2 where
modern sexism was assessed. In that study, participants who scored lower on the measure of
modern sexism confronted the confederate more strongly during the IM conversation and were
more likely to later confront the comment during the essay exchange. Further, modern sexism
interacted with confronting efficacy in predicting essay confrontation strength. Confronting
efficacy was not predictive at lower levels of modern sexism. However, confronting efficacy
was predictive of confronting behavior at higher levels of modern sexism, such that individuals
who endorsed modern sexism beliefs and reported high levels of confronting efficacy confronted
much less strongly than others during the instant message conversation. Though hypotheses
were focused on individuals rejecting modern sexism, this pattern of results is consistent with
general predictions, as weaker confrontations would be expected from people who espouse
modern sexist attitudes. As discussed earlier, it may be that efficacy is serving as a magnifier of
one’s likely behavior, whether that is to confront or agree with the partner’s hiring decision.
It is interesting that modern racism was not a significant predictor of confronting
behavior whereas modern sexism was. Both constructs had similar means and standard
deviations, so it does not seem to the case that modern racism beliefs are rejected while modern
sexism beliefs are endorsed. Both scales had similar, high levels of internal consistency, so it
does not seem to be the case that one scale is performing better than the other. Perhaps the

57

nature of sexism confrontation differs from the confrontation of racism, such that attitudinal
variables like modern sexism and modern racism are not predictive in the same ways. It may be
that participants are less comfortable acknowledging or discussing topics related to race, and
were less inhibited when it came to discussing the sexist hiring decision. Or perhaps individuals
are less confident or committed to their attitudes regarding racism, and therefore less likely to act
on them than their attitudes related to sexism.
Confronting efficacy
It has long been established that people are more likely to undertake endeavors when they
anticipate success (Bandura, 1977; Latané & Darley, 1970). Though few studies have looked at
confronting efficacy specifically, many studies have demonstrated a link between activism and
similar constructs, such as self-confidence and agency (Kaysen & Stake, 2001; Romer, 1990;
Stewart, Settles, & Winter, 1998; Werner, 1978), incremental implicit theories (Rattan & Dweck,
2010), and optimism (Kaiser & Miller, 2004; Sechrist, 2010; Wellman et. al., 2009). It was
hypothesized that, in the current studies, participants who felt more capable of successful
confronting offensive behavior would confront more strongly than participants who reported less
efficacy. This hypothesis received minimal support. In Study 1, participants who reported
higher levels of efficacy used a more negative tone in their essays. However, efficacy was not
predictive in fourteen other tests of main effects. Confronting efficacy did interact with several
variables (just world beliefs in Study 1, modern sexism in Study 2, and condition and just world
beliefs in Study 3). However, these patterns of results were not entirely consistent with
hypotheses. Rather, than higher levels of efficacy always predicting higher levels of
confrontation, it seemed that efficacy was simply intensifying or magnifying the participants’
likely behavior (as predicted by other variables). Thus if an individual is likely to confront an act

58

of discrimination, higher levels of efficacy may make this confrontation even stronger or more
likely. However, if an individual’s tendency is to not confront or even to endorse an act of
discrimination, then higher levels of efficacy may predict especially weak confrontations.
The three-way interaction observed in Study 3 may provide additional insight into the nature of
the efficacy variable. Though no specific hypotheses were made regarding three-way
interactions, given general study predictions one would have expected the least friendly
confrontations to have come from participants who rejected just world beliefs, had high levels of
efficacy, and observed discrimination toward a target who was weakly identified with his race.
In fact, participants who fit all three of these criteria had the friendliest tone scores. However,
participants who fit two of the three criteria (rejected just world beliefs and were in the low
identity condition) did have the least friendly confrontations. Thus efficacy was the variable that
did not work as predicted. The pattern of results suggests that the predictions about efficacy may
be correct in terms of confrontation strength, but not confrontation tone. Recall that the tone
variable reflects the extent to which the participant was friendly and not does not necessarily
reflect the content of the conversation. So it may be the case that participants who rejected just
world beliefs, had high levels of efficacy, and were in the low identity condition were
confronting their participants strongly (consistent with predictions), but were able to do so in an
especially friendly way. Their high efficacy scores may reflect their belief that they can confront
offensive behavior in a way that is both strong and friendly, which is likely to be effective.
Perhaps the confrontations by participants who rejected just world beliefs, had low levels of
efficacy, and were in the low identity condition were strong confrontations (speculative) but
hostile (indicated here). Thus their low self-reports of confrontation efficacy may be reflecting

59

their self-perceived difficulty in confronting prejudice in a way that is friendly enough to be
effective.
Overall, efficacy was not found to be a strong predictor of confronting behavior as
operationalized in these studies. Further, the measure used asked participants to indicate their
feelings of efficacy about confronting “offensive behavior” in general. It could be the case that
this measure was too vague and that a more specific measure of efficacy (i.e., one that assesses
efficacy related to confrontations of racism or sexism) would prove more effective at predicting
confronting behavior.
Racial identification of discrimination victim
Previous studies have found that highly identified people of color are evaluated more
negatively by White participants than are people of color who are less identified with their race
(Kaiser & Pratt-Hyatt, 2009). In addition, people of color who are more identified with their
race report higher levels of experienced discrimination than less-identified people of color.
Building on this work, it was hypothesized that White participants would be less likely to
confront discrimination when it was directed at a highly-identified Black man than when it was
directed at a less-identified Black man. However, this hypothesis was not supported as target
racial identification did not predict any of the confronting variables. Target racial identification
(i.e., study condition) did interact with several other variables (e.g., state anger, just world
beliefs, and confronting efficacy). However, analyses of simple slopes yielded several null
results and no clear pattern among the results that were significant. This could suggest that target
identification was not an important factor in predicting confronting behavior or it may indicate a
lack of statistical power. Another possible explanation for this lack of findings may be a failure
in the identity manipulation. Although participants in a pilot study rated the high and low

60

identity applicants accordingly, no manipulation check was included in the final study. Thus, it
is unknown if participants recognized and interpreted the applicants’ racial identity cues as
intended.
Limitations
The online format of these studies may have had an important impact on the findings.
Specifically, because participants were working anonymously with strangers who they would
never meet in person, they may have behaved differently than they would in their day-to-day
lives. In order to perpetuate the cover story, participants were asked to write about their
impressions of the online task (e.g., its ease/difficulty, costs/benefits). Many participants
indicated that they felt more able to speak their mind and to be assertive than they would have in
a face-to-face interaction. Thus, the online nature of the task may have resulted in higher rates of
confrontation than would have been observed in a face-to-face interaction. At the same time,
many participants indicated that the lack of nonverbal cues (e.g., body language, facial
expressions) was a hindrance in the discussions. When discussing the key hiring decision
specifically, participants frequently stated that they were unsure of their partner’s meaning and
intention, and were therefore unsure how to react. This suggests that some of the people who
confronted in weak or moderate ways may have done so more strongly if nonverbal cues made
them more certain that their partner was behaving in a racist/sexist manner.
Similarly, it is unclear how participants understood the comments that were intended to
be offensive. Although pilot testing indicated that each comment was interpreted as racist/sexist
in a sample of similar participants, no manipulation check other than the participants’ statements
and essays was used in these studies. Thus, there is no objective data indicating how participants
interpreted the comments. It is likely that many of the participants who did not confront or who

61

confronted weakly did so because they did not interpret the key comment as discriminatory.
However, it is worth noting that the confederate was still selecting an obviously less-qualified
majority candidate over a minority candidate. Therefore, rather than being a major confound in
these studies, the lack of data regarding comment interpretation is more appropriately considered
an unmeasured variable that is likely an important part of the confronting process. Recall that
the first step in confronting prejudice is to be aware of it (Feagin, 1991; Fitzgerald et al., 1995).
Therefore, it is unlikely that some participants randomly understand the situation to be
discriminatory, while others randomly failed to do so. Rather certain characteristics of the
participant (e.g., awareness of ongoing discrimination, concerns about social justice, group
identity) likely determined which participants recognized this as an act of discrimination and
which ones did not. Future studies should aim to capture data related to each step of the
confrontation process in order to understand who will ultimately confront discrimination and
who will not.
A major source of noise in these studies was the complicated nature of the study design.
Specifically, it is clear that the undergraduate confederates had a very difficult time
implementing the instant message conversations as intended. The stated objective was to
provide each participant with the same experience during the conversations, with any variation in
the conversations being driven by the participant. Confederates were instructed to stick to the
script as much as possible and were even encouraged to copy and paste responses (but allowing
realistic amounts of “typing time”) to minimize variability. When a non-scripted response was
required (because a participant said something unanticipated), confederates were instructed to
aim for typical, expected, “normal” responses and to not say any more than was required. The
goal was for confederates to not make a strong impression (positive or negative) on the

62

participant. After delivering the racist/sexist comment, the confederates were supposed to
continue the conversation long enough to give the participant a chance to say anything they
wanted to say. However, the confederate was not supposed to say anything that would further
escalate the situation (e.g., “add on” to the offensive comment) nor anything that would
ameliorate the situation (e.g., “I see what you mean, I guess that was offensive.”). Rather, they
had a list of noncommittal and relatively neutral comments that could be sent in response to the
participants’ questions comment (e.g., “I don’t know, whatever,” “I’m just telling you what I
think,” “It’s not that big of a deal.”). When the participant, seemed to have said everything they
wanted to say (e.g., they ceased replying at a speed typical of the conversation; they said
something like, “OK, so what do we do now? We have to agree on someone”), or 2) it became
impractical for the confederate to continue providing vague responses (e.g., the participant was
demanding more specific information), the confederate was supposed to terminate the
conversation by agreeing to the participant’s original candidate choice (“Let’s just pick your guy
and go on to the next set”). The coding of the IM conversations clearly indicated that there were
frequent deviations from the protocol. Several variables were coded to capture the frequency
and severity of these errors. The first such variable represented whether or not an egregious
error was committed (e.g., the confederate sent more than one of the racist/sexist comments or
added an unscripted remark that changed the nature of the conversation). An error of this
magnitude occurred in 2 (1.7% of) cases in Study 1, 4 (2.3% of) cases in Study 2, and 15 (8.0%
of) cases in Study 3. Participants were excluded from analyses if their trial included one of these
confederate errors. A second coded variable captured less serious, but still problematic, protocol
errors (e.g., paraphrasing or altering the key comment, response delays, typos). These kinds of
errors occurred in 25 (20.7% of) cases in Study 1, 45 (26.0% of) cases in Study 2, and 94 (50.0%

63

of) cases in Study 3. The last coded variable represented the extent to which the participant was
allotted adequate time to confront. A code of 1 was given if they participant was not allowed
any time to confront (i.e., the confederate used the “let’s go with your guy” comment before the
participant had time to make any sort of meaningful response to the racist/sexist comment. This
code was given in 8 (6.6% of) cases in Study 1, 1 (0.6% of) cases in Study 2, and 3 (1.6% of)
cases in Study 3. A code of 2 was given on this variable if the participant was given a less-thanadequate amount of time to respond (i.e., the pair exchanged a few remarks, but the confederate
used the “let’s go with your guy” comment before the participant seemed finished or before it
was practically necessary). This code was given in 43 (20.7% of) cases in Study 1, 25 (14.5%
of) cases in Study 2, and 53 (28.2% of) cases in Study 3. A code of 3 was given on this variable
if the participant had ample time to respond (i.e., the protocol was enacted as outlined or the
participant agreed to select the confederate’s applicant). This code was given in 70 (57.9% of)
cases in Study 1, 146 (84.4% of) cases in Study 2, and 131 (69.7% of) cases in Study 3. In sum,
these codes indicate that the IM protocol was frequently implemented incorrectly and likely
decreased the probability of finding significant effects.
A relatively high number of participants were excluded from analyses due to missing
data, protocol error, failure to follow directions, and suspicion. The resulting small sizes may
have left these studies underpowered. Many analyses yielded moderate effect sizes that did not
reach statistical significance. A replication of these studies, with the previously identified
problems corrected, may yield more statistically significant findings.
Future directions
In addition to the suggestions for future research outlined above, these data suggested two
other possible areas of interest. Though not the focus of these studies, the diversity of

64

confronting styles observed in the studies was very interesting. Some participants were very
cautious in interpreting the confederate’s comment and seemed reluctant to make assumptions
about the confederate’s intentions. Other participants immediately labeled the comment as
offensive, sexist, or racist. Many participants attempted to politely educate the confederate (“It’s
actually illegal to take race into consideration,” “Not all women are like that.”). Others became
angry and were more focused on expressing their disapproval than in educating. Future studies
should go beyond the variables on confrontation strength and tone and explore these various
approaches to confrontation. What situational and individual differences predict the approach
that is taken? Do some approaches elicit more attitude change in the perpetrator than others?
Similarly, an interesting trend emerged in which participants would report the
discriminatory behavior, but would not directly confront the confederate. For example, several
participants typed out essays in which they outlined the discriminatory behavior, but then either
did not send them to the confederate as instructed or sent an altered, non-confrontational version.
A couple of participants stated aloud to the experimenter that their partner was being racist or
sexist, but did not engage in especially strong confrontations. Although direct confrontation of
discrimination is the behavior of interest in these studies, it may be important to investigate these
other reactions. Who chooses to report discrimination to a third-party rather than confront the
perpetrator directly? What psychological benefits, if any, do they derive from reporting the
offense to someone else? What costs, if any, do they incur as a result of not confronting the
perpetrator directly?
Although these studies were interested in confronting behavior, a relatively high rate of
acquiescence was also observed. With very few exceptions, participants selected the morequalified Black man or White woman in the key hiring trial. However, a large minority of

65

participants demonstrated compliance with the confederate and agreed to hire the less-qualified
White, male applicant (23.8% in Study 1, 18.8% in Study 2, and 26.6% in Study 3). Some
participants agreed almost immediately with little, if any, discussion. Others initially confronted
the comment, but later agreed to hire the confederate’s candidate. Because it was not a focus of
these studies, the coding scheme does not allow for a thorough investigation into the reasons
behind these conversions. Some participants seemed to be genuinely persuaded away from their
initial candidate or toward the confederate’s candidate. Others seemed to be agreeing out of
apathy or a desire to complete the study quickly. Further study of these behaviors could have
implications not only for persuasion research, but also research and hiring practices. Hiring
decisions can have important real-world outcomes for individual applicants and businesses and
organizations overall. In addition to being high-stakes, hiring decisions can involve moral
decision-making when bias or prejudice seems to be occurring. Such factors may serve as
important moderators in persuasion research. The phenomenon of participants agreeing to hire
the less-qualified White applicant out of apathy or impatience may have important implications
for the external validity of this and other studies. To what extent would these participants allow
discrimination to occur in a real world setting? Should researchers do more to assess participant
apathy in their studies and use these assessments to exclude participants who are not sufficiently
invested?
Conclusions
Across three studies, participants engaged in mock hiring decisions with a confederate
partner who discriminated against a Black male or White female candidate. Participants had an
opportunity to confront their partner about the discrimination immediately and directly via
instant message conversation and had a second opportunity to confront less directly via a later

66

essay exchange. Their responses were coded for five indicators of confrontation strength.
Counter to hypotheses, target group membership failed to be an important predictor of
confronting behavior. Although most previous research has focused on confrontation among
targeted group members, these findings suggest that non-targets are just as likely to confront
discrimination. The motivation and nature of these confrontations should be explored in future
research, in hopes of identifying ways to increase levels of activism related to discrimination.
The strongest predictor of confrontation was state anger. When controlling for
participants’ trait levels of anger, state anger was a significant predictor across studies and
dependent variables. This has important implications for future research and real-world
activism. Future studies should explore how anger affects the kinds of confrontations in which
people engage and the effectiveness of these confrontations. It may be the case that anger leads
to less effective confrontations as the confronter’s anger is likely to cause the confronted person
to be defensiveness and less open to the confronter’s message. If this is the case, it may be
important to educate potential activists about the importance of controlling emotion to ensure
effective confrontations.
Belief in a just world did not prove to be an effective predictive of confronting behavior.
The results of these studies suggest that the current reliability and validity of this widely-used
measure should be assessed. Given its age, revisions may be necessary to maintain the
effectiveness of this measure.
The results associated with group identification, prejudicial attitudes, and confronting
efficacy provided less clear results. These variables were somewhat predictive of confronting
behavior, but the exact nature of their effects remains unclear. It is likely that variables related to

67

race, gender, and discrimination are confounded with many other variables. Thus follow-up
research is needed to identify the key factors that predict confronting behavior.
Study 3 failed to demonstrate that White participants were less likely to confront on
behalf of an African American who was more identified with his race compared to a less
identified target. Future studies will be necessary to determine whether these null results
represent a Type II error (e.g., due to a failed identification manipulation; a context specific
limitation of this study), or if target racial identification is, in fact, unrelated to bystanders’
willingness to confront.
Overall, these studies demonstrated that non-target group members were just as likely to
confront observed discrimination as were target group members and that anger was the strongest
predictor of confronting behavior. Mixed and null results related to other variables indicate ideas
for future studies.

68

APPENDICES

69

Appendix A
Overview of paradigm used in all studies



Participants complete measures of trait negative affect and individual differences in an
ostensibly unrelated online study



Hiring decisions
o Trial 1 – Confederate shares choice first and participant is likely to agree
o Trial 2 – Participant shares choice first and confederate disagrees
o Trial 3 - Confederate shares choice first and participant is likely to agree
o Trial 4 – Key trial; participant shares first, confederate makes seemingly
discriminatory hiring choice (participant’s first chance to confront)
o Trial 5 - Confederate shares choice first and participant is likely to agree



Complete state negative affect measure after Trial 4



Essay task
o Participant writes a short essay on task ease (to continue cover story)
o Participant writes a short essay on impressions of partner (second chance to
confront)

70

Appendix B
Job description
Position: Financial Advisor
Job Description: This is a steadily growing company within the financial services industry. We
promote a teamwork atmosphere and have an exceptional reputation for excellent customer
service and integrity. We are now hiring an experienced and highly motivated financial advisor
to join our team, you will have an opportunity to work alongside established experts to help build
your business portfolio and a team underneath you. The position has a competitive salary plus a
generous commission structure employees receive benefits after 90 days and a 401K plan after
180 days. There are lots of opportunities for unlimited growth and advancement within the
company based on performance. Many of our financial advisors very quickly have the
opportunity to build their own team and open their own branch. We provide excellent leads,
strong networks and business relationships, proven techniques, a reputable name, an excellent
support staff, and all the materials you will need to have unlimited success.
Requirements:
 Bachelor’s Degree, preferably in a business related field.
 2 years of relevant experience
 Comprehensive knowledge of the financial industry
 Excellent communication skills, verbal and written
 Strong time management and multi-tasking ability
 Demonstrate strong leadership abilities
 Strong commitment to teamwork and continuous learning
Responsibilities:
 Build a portfolio of clients through calling, prospecting, referrals, and business
relationships.
 Complete executive presentations to secure business.
 Learn and practice effective techniques to sell financial products to prospective clients.
 Build extensive networks and contribute to the overall growth of the company
 Work cooperatively with a team and support staff, contribute to weekly sales meetings.
 Help lead and train new advisors.
 Complete business with honesty and integrity.

71

Appendix C
Information provided for each applicant
Table C1: Study 1 – Confronting a racist hiring decision
Study 1 – Confronting a racist hiring decision
Applicant

Race/gender

Strength

Degree

School

GPA

Experience

Awards

1A

White man

strong

masters

Not given

6 years

Not given

1B

White man

average

Master’s

Not given

3 years

Not given

1C

White woman

average

Bachelor’s

Not given

4 years

Not given

2A

White man

average

Bachelor’s

3.55/4.0

4 years

Not given

2B

Prefer not to say

weak

Bachelor’s

3.0/4.0

1 year

Not given

2C

White man

average

Bachelor’s

3.6/40

4 years

Not given

3A

White woman

weak

Bachelor’s

Stanford
Colorado State
University
St. Lawrence University
University of California
–San Diego
Not given
University of Wisconsin
- Madison
St. Charles Community
College

Not given

2 years

Not given

3B

White woman

strong

Associate’s

Duke University

3.85/4.0

3 years

3C

White man

average

Bachelor’s

University of Tulsa

3.3/4.0

3 years

4A

White man

average

Bachelor’s

Iowa State University

Not given

3 years

4B

Black man

strong

Master’s

Princeton

Not given

6 years

4C

White man

weak

Bachelor’s

Not given

none

5A

White woman

weak

Bachelor’s

3.1/4.0

1 year

Not given

5B

White man

average

Associate’s

3.35/4.0

3 years

Not given

5C

White man

strong

Bachelor’s

University of Kansas
Montgomery County
Community College
Boston University
University of Illinois –
Urbana-Champaign

Not given
Salesperson of
the Year
Not given

3.79/4.0

5 years

Not given

72

Customer
Service Award
Not given

Table C2: Study 2 – Confronting a sexist hiring decision
Study 2 – Confronting a sexist hiring decision
Applicant

Race/gender

Strength

Degree

School

GPA

Experience

Misc.

1A

White man

strong

Master’s

Not given

6 years

Not given

1B

White man

average

Bachelor’s

Not given

3 years

Not given

1C

Asian American
man

average

Bachelor’s

Not given

4 years

Not given

2A

White man

average

Bachelor’s

3.55/4.0

4 years

Not given

2B

Prefer not to say

weak

Bachelor’s

3.0/4.0

1 year

Not given

2C

White man

average

Bachelor’s

3.6/40

4 years

Not given

3A

Black man

Weak

Associate’s

Stanford
Colorado State
University
St. Lawrence
University
University of
California –San
Diego
Not given
University of
Wisconsin - Madison
St. Charles
Community College

Not given

2 years

Not given

3B

White man

strong

Bachelor’s

Duke University

3.85/4.0

3 years

3C

White man

average

Bachelor’s

University of Tulsa

3.3/4.0

3 years

4A

White man

average

Bachelor’s

Iowa State University

Not given

3 years

4B

White woman

strong

Master’s

Princeton

Not given

6 years

4C

White man

weak

Bachelor’s

University of Kansas

Not given

none

Not given
Salesperson of
the Year
Not given

5A

Black man

weak

Associate’s

3.1/4.0

1 year

Not given

5B

White man

average

Bachelor’s

3.35/4.0

3 years

Not given

5C

White man

strong

Bachelor’s

Montgomery County
Community College
Boston University
University of Illinois
– Urbana-Champaign

3.79/4.0

5 years

Not given

73

Customer
Service Award
Not given

Table C3: Study 3 – Discrimination target who is highly identified with his race
Study 3 – Discrimination target who is highly identified with his race
Applicant

Race/
gender

1A

White
man

1B

White
man

1C

Strength

Degree

School

GPA

Experience

Community Involvement

6 years

Member of The American Accounting
Association (AAA), Member of
Business Marketing Association
(BMA),Volunteer for Big Brother Big
Sister Organization

Master’s

Stanford

Not
given

average

Bachelor’s

Colorado
State
University

Not
given

3 years

White
woman

average

Bachelor’s

St. Lawrence
University

Not
given

4 years

2A

White
man

average

Bachelor’s

University of
California –
San Diego

3.55/4.0

4 years

2B

Prefer
not to
say

weak

Bachelor’s

Not given

3.0/4.0

1 year

3.6/40

4 years

Not
given

2 years

strong

2C

White
man

average

Bachelor’s

University of
Wisconsin Madison

3A

White
woman

Weak

Associate’s

St. Charles
Community
College

74

Member of Business Clubs America
(BCA),
Member of American Marketing
Association
Member of the Association for
Financial Professionals (AFP)
Member of the National Society of
Accountants (NSA), Member of the
Society of California Accountants
(SCA)
----Member of the National Society of
Personal Financial Planners (NAPFA),
Member of Beta Alpha Psi (BAP):
Sigma chapter
Member of the Financial Managers
Society (FMS),
Member of the American Accounting
Association (AAA)

Table C3 (cont’d)
3B

White
woman

strong

Bachelor’s

Duke
University

3.85/4.0

3 years

3C

White
man

average

Bachelor’s

University of
Tulsa

3.3/4.0

3 years

4A

White
man

Bachelor’s

Iowa State
University

Not
given

4B–high
id

Black
man

strong

Master’s

Howard
University

Not
given

6 years

4B–low id

Black
man

strong

Master’s

Princeton

Not
given

6 years

4C

White
man

weak

Bachelor’s

Not
given

none

5A

White
woman

weak

Associate’s

University of
Kansas
Montgomery
County
Community
College

3.1/4.0

1 year

5B

White
man

average

Bachelor’s

Boston
University

3.35/4.0

3 years

Bachelor’s

University of
Illinois –
UrbanaChampaign

5C

White
man

average

strong

3.79/4.0

75

3 years

5 years

Member of the Society of Financial
Advisors
Member of the Oklahoma Society of
CPA: Tulsa Chapter, Volunteer with the
Oklahaven Children's Chiropractic
Center
Vice-President of the Pappajohn Center
for Entrepreneurship,
Lions Club of Iowa
National Black MBA Association,
National Association for the
Advancement of Colored People
(NAACP)
New Jersey Business and Industry
Association, United States Junior
Chamber (Jaycees)
Member of the New Neighbors League
of Lawrence Kansas
Member of the Old York Road Country
Club
Member of the Boston Business Club,
Salvation Army Volunteer
Member of the American Business Clubs
(AMBUCS), Champaign County
Chamber of Commerce, Brilliant Futures
Campaign Chair

Appendix D
Cover letters and applications for discrimination victim in each study
Study 1 – Highly qualified Black man
To whom it may concern:
I am seeking a position in which I will be able to demonstrate my knowledge learned
through my six years of experience and education. While attending Princeton and receiving my
Master’s degree, I learned valuable knowledge of how the business world operates. Outside of
the classroom I submerged myself in two internships to ensure I had a strong knowledge base of
business in the real world. At Johnson & Johnson, I learned how to successfully work as a team,
allowing each person’s strengths to come out to perform the best. Johnson & Johnson taught me
the importance of ensuring a customer’s satisfaction, no matter what that might entail. Upon
completion of my Johnson & Johnson internship, I interned at Smith & Barney where I was able
to apply my newly learned knowledge from Johnson & Johnson. Smith & Barney has a
completely different set up, which allowed me to use my interpersonal skills to succeed. May I
arrange an interview to further discuss my qualifications? I am available for an interview at a
mutually convenient time. Thank you for your time and consideration.
[NAME BLACKED OUT]

76

APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
Please type or print.
TODAY’S DATE:

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name:

Cooke
Last

Address:

Christopher
First

Aaron
Middle

624 North view R
Street
(Apt.) City, State

Contact information: ( )
( )
Home phone

d
Zip

ccooke@yahoo.com
Mobile phone
Email

Are you legally eligible for employment in the U.S.?

Yes

No

For company purpose only (to analyze diversity of applicants), answers will not affect
qualifications for employment:
Gender:
Race:

Male

Female

White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino/a
Native American
Prefer not to say

Prefer not to say
Black/African American
Asian/Asian American
Arab/Arab American

EDUCATION
Name and
Location

Graduate?
List degree
earned

Major/Specialization

College or
University

Princeton

Bachelor’s

Finance

Graduate
school

Princeton

Master’s

Finance

Business or
Trade school

77

WORK EXPERIENCE
Employer
Name

Job title

Northwestern Mutual
Financial Group

Financial Consultant

Employer address
and phone
Bldg 1
731 Alexander Rd,
Ste 300
Princeton, NJ 08540

Date (mo/yr)

From:2005

(609) 951-8700

Sam Goody

Management/
Operations Intern

Cashier

From:2003
To:2005

140 Central Avenue
Westfield, NJ 07090

From:2001

(908)232-2686

To:2003

10 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ
07962

From:1999

(973)267-4545

Johnson & Johnson
Family of Companies

Intern

1 Pluckemin Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
908-306-8018

Smith Barney

To: present

To:2001

Please list areas of proficiency, special skills, or other items that may contribute to your
abilities in performing this position.
Received Consultant of the Year Award in 2007
Website development experience, strong computer skills
Proficient with Microsoft office programs (Excel, PowerPoint, Word, Outlook, etc.)
Able to multi-task and complete assignments in a timely manner
Self-motivated and organized
Have excellent communication (verbal and written) skills and demonstrate leadership

78

Study 2 – Highly qualified White woman
To whom it may concern:
I am seeking a position in which I will be able to demonstrate my knowledge learned
through my six years of experience and education. While attending Princeton and receiving my
Master’s degree, I learned valuable knowledge of how the business world operates. Outside of
the classroom I submerged myself in two internships to ensure I had a strong knowledge base of
business in the real world. At Johnson & Johnson, I learned how to successfully work as a team,
allowing each person’s strengths to come out to perform the best. Johnson & Johnson taught me
the importance of ensuring a customer’s satisfaction, no matter what that might entail. Upon
completion of my Johnson & Johnson internship, I interned at Smith & Barney where I was able
to apply my newly learned knowledge from Johnson & Johnson. Smith & Barney has a
completely different set up, which allowed me to use my interpersonal skills to succeed. May I
arrange an interview to further discuss my qualifications? I am available for an interview at a
mutually convenient time. Thank you for your time and consideration.
[NAME BLACKED OUT]

79

APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
Please type or print.
TODAY’S DATE:

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name:

Cooke
Last

Address:

Christopher
First

Aaron
Middle

624 North view R
Street
(Apt.) City, State

Contact information: ( )
( )
Home phone

d
Zip

ccooke@yahoo.com
Mobile phone
Email

Are you legally eligible for employment in the U.S.?

Yes

No

For company purpose only (to analyze diversity of applicants), answers will not affect
qualifications for employment:
Gender:
Race:

Male

Female

White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino/a
Native American
Prefer not to say

Prefer not to say
Black/African American
Asian/Asian American
Arab/Arab American

EDUCATION
Name and
Location

Graduate?
List degree
earned

Major/Specialization

College or
University

Princeton

Bachelor’s

Finance

Graduate
school

Princeton

Master’s

Finance

Business or
Trade school

80

WORK EXPERIENCE
Employer
Name

Job title

Northwestern Mutual
Financial Group

Financial Consultant

Employer address
and phone
Bldg 1
731 Alexander Rd,
Ste 300
Princeton, NJ 08540

Date (mo/yr)

From:2005

(609) 951-8700

Sam Goody

Management/
Operations Intern

Cashier

From:2003
To:2005

140 Central Avenue
Westfield, NJ 07090

From:2001

(908)232-2686

To:2003

10 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ
07962

From:1999

(973)267-4545

Johnson & Johnson
Family of Companies

Intern

1 Pluckemin Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
908-306-8018

Smith Barney

To: present

To:2001

Please list areas of proficiency, special skills, or other items that may contribute to your
abilities in performing this position.
Received Consultant of the Year Award in 2007
Website development experience, strong computer skills
Proficient with Microsoft office programs (Excel, PowerPoint, Word, Outlook, etc.)
Able to multi-task and complete assignments in a timely manner
Self-motivated and organized
Have excellent communication (verbal and written) skills and demonstrate leadership

81

Study 3 – Highly qualified Black man who is weakly racially identified
To whom it may concern:
I am seeking a position in which I will be able to demonstrate my knowledge learned
through my six years of experience and education. While attending Princeton and receiving my
Master’s degree, I learned valuable knowledge of how the business world operates. Outside of
the classroom I submerged myself in two internships to ensure I had a strong knowledge base of
business in the real world. At Johnson & Johnson, I learned how to successfully work as a team,
allowing each person’s strengths to come out to perform the best. Johnson & Johnson taught me
the importance of ensuring a customer’s satisfaction, no matter what that might entail. Upon
completion of my Johnson & Johnson internship, I interned at Smith & Barney where I was able
to apply my newly learned knowledge from Johnson & Johnson. Smith & Barney has a
completely different set up, which allowed me to use my interpersonal skills to succeed. May I
arrange an interview to further discuss my qualifications? I am available for an interview at a
mutually convenient time. Thank you for your time and consideration.
[NAME BLACKED OUT]

82

APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
Please type or print.
TODAY’S DATE:

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name:

Cooke
Last

Address:

Christopher
First

Aaron
Middle

624 North view R
Street
(Apt.) City, State

Contact information: ( )
( )
Home phone

d
Zip

ccooke@yahoo.com
Mobile phone
Email

Are you legally eligible for employment in the U.S.?

Yes

No

For company purpose only (to analyze diversity of applicants), answers will not affect
qualifications for employment:
Gender:
Race:

Male

Female

White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino/a
Native American
Prefer not to say

Prefer not to say
Black/African American
Asian/Asian American
Arab/Arab American

EDUCATION
Name and
Location

Graduate?
List degree
earned

Major/Specialization

College or
University

Princeton

Bachelor’s

Finance

Graduate
school

Princeton

Master’s

Finance

Business or
Trade school

83

WORK EXPERIENCE
Employer
Name

Job title

Northwestern Mutual
Financial Group

Financial Consultant

Employer address
and phone
Bldg 1
731 Alexander Rd,
Ste 300
Princeton, NJ 08540

Date (mo/yr)

From:2005

(609) 951-8700

Sam Goody

Management/
Operations Intern

Cashier

From:2003
To:2005

140 Central Avenue
Westfield, NJ 07090

From:2001

(908)232-2686

To:2003

10 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ
07962

From:1999

(973)267-4545

Johnson & Johnson
Family of Companies

Intern

1 Pluckemin Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
908-306-8018

Smith Barney

To: present

To:2001

Please list areas of proficiency, special skills, or other items that may contribute to your
abilities in performing this position.
Received Consultant of the Year Award in 2007
Website development experience, strong computer skills
Proficient with Microsoft office programs (Excel, PowerPoint, Word, Outlook, etc.)
Able to multi-task and complete assignments in a timely manner
Self-motivated and organized
Have excellent communication (verbal and written) skills and demonstrate leadership
Community Involvement
New Jersey Business and Industry Association
United States Junior Chamber (Jaycees)

84

Study 3– Highly qualified Black man who is strongly racially identified
To whom it may concern:
I am seeking a position in which I will be able to demonstrate my knowledge learned
through my six years of experience and education. While attending Howard University (a
prestigious Historically Black University) and receiving my Master’s degree, I learned valuable
knowledge of how the business world operates. Outside of the classroom I submerged myself in
two internships to ensure I had a strong knowledge base of business in the real world. At Johnson
& Johnson, I learned how to successfully work as a team, allowing each person’s strengths to
come out to perform the best. Johnson & Johnson taught me the importance of ensuring a
customer’s satisfaction, no matter what that might entail. Upon completion of my Johnson &
Johnson internship, I interned at Smith & Barney where I was able to apply my newly learned
knowledge from Johnson & Johnson. Smith & Barney has a completely different set up, which
allowed me to use my interpersonal skills to succeed. May I arrange an interview to further
discuss my qualifications? I am available for an interview at a mutually convenient time. Thank
you for your time and consideration.
[NAME BLACKED OUT]

85

APPLICATION FOR EMPLOYMENT
Please type or print.
TODAY’S DATE:

PERSONAL INFORMATION
Name:

Cooke
Last

Address:

Christopher
First

Aaron
Middle

624 North view R
Street
(Apt.) City, State

Contact information: ( )
( )
Home phone

d
Zip

ccooke@yahoo.com
Mobile phone
Email

Are you legally eligible for employment in the U.S.?

Yes

No

For company purpose only (to analyze diversity of applicants), answers will not affect
qualifications for employment:
Gender:
Race:

Male

Female

White/Caucasian
Hispanic/Latino/a
Native American
Prefer not to say

Prefer not to say
Black/African American
Asian/Asian American
Arab/Arab American

EDUCATION
Name and
Location

Graduate?
List degree
earned

Major/Specialization

College or
University

Howard
University

Bachelor’s

Finance

Graduate
school

Howard
University

Master’s

Finance

Business or
Trade school

86

WORK EXPERIENCE
Employer
Name

Job title

Northwestern Mutual
Financial Group

Financial Consultant

Employer address
and phone
Bldg 1
731 Alexander Rd,
Ste 300
Princeton, NJ 08540

Date (mo/yr)

From:2005

(609) 951-8700

Sam Goody

Management/
Operations Intern

Cashier

From:2003
To:2005

140 Central Avenue
Westfield, NJ 07090

From:2001

(908)232-2686

To:2003

10 Madison Avenue
Morristown, NJ
07962

From:1999

(973)267-4545

Johnson & Johnson
Family of Companies

Intern

1 Pluckemin Way
Bedminster, NJ 07921
908-306-8018

Smith Barney

To: present

To:2001

Please list areas of proficiency, special skills, or other items that may contribute to your
abilities in performing this position.
Received Consultant of the Year Award in 2007
Website development experience, strong computer skills
Proficient with Microsoft office programs (Excel, PowerPoint, Word, Outlook, etc.)
Able to multi-task and complete assignments in a timely manner
Self-motivated and organized
Have excellent communication (verbal and written) skills and demonstrate leadership
Community Involvement
National Black MBA Association
National Association for the Advancement of Colored People (NAACP)

87

Appendix E
Table E1: Study 1 Application Piloting Results
Applicant Applicant Applicant
A
B
C
Trial
Application evaluation
SS
Mean
Mean
Mean
(SD)
(SD)
(SD)
35.83
5.07
4.89
6.32
Application strength
(1.00)
(1.06)
(0.95)
52.27
5.07
4.82
6.56
Qualifications
1
(1.04)
(1.240
(0.71)
58.87
4.84
4.43
6.32
Hiring recommendation
(1.16)
(1.37)
(1.03)
110.86
3.09
5.00
5.07
Application strength
(1.18)
(1.20)
(0.82)
121.47
3.09
5.09
5.16
Qualifications
2
(1.10)
(1.22)
(1.03)
146.65
2.70
4.82
5.05
Hiring recommendation
(1.29)
(1.23)
(1.03)
71.40
4.45
4.66
6.11
Application strength
(1.09)
(1.01)
(0.95)
99.59
4.09
4.43
6.09
Qualifications
3
(1.31)
(1.15)
(0.94)
99.67
3.95
4.18
5.91
Hiring recommendation
(1.24)
(1.13)
(1.18)
Note: Bolded numbers represent the intended best applicant(s) in each trial.
*p < .05

88

MS

F (2)

Group
differences
(Tukey)

17.91

17.49*

A > B, C

26.14

22.91*

A > B, C

19.44

19.73*

A > B, C

55.43

47.54*

A, C > B

60.74

48.62*

A, C > B

73.33

52.08*

A, C > B

35.70

35.23*

B > A, C

49.80

38.17*

B > A, C

49.84

35.55*

B > A, C

Table E1 (cont’d)
32.00
3.84
4.05
5.53
(1.50)
(1.54)
(1.07)
29.51
3.95
3.95
5.47
Qualifications
4
(1.65)
(1.72)
(1.12)
35.53
3.37
3.68
5.11
Hiring recommendation
(1.42)
(1.77)
(1.33)
167.29
3.18
5.00
5.89
Application strength
(1.08)
(1.06)
(1.02)
227.70
2.64
4.95
5.73
Qualifications
5
(1.04)
(1.28)
(1.15)
226.68
2.59
4.89
5.68
Hiring recommendation
(1.30)
(1.33)
(1.22)
Note: Bolded numbers represent the intended best applicant(s) in each trial.
Application strength

*p < .05

89

16.00

8.29*

B > A, C

14.75

6.39*

B > A, C

16.26

7.06*

B > A, C

83.64

75.47*

C>B>A

113.85

84.98*

C>B>A

113.34

68.77*

C>B>A

Appendix F
Table F1: Study 2 Application Piloting Results
Applicant Applicant Applicant
A
B
C
Trial
Application evaluation
SS
Mean
Mean
Mean
(SD)
(SD)
(SD)
35.83
5.07
4.89
6.32
Application strength
(1.00)
(1.06)
(0.95)
52.27
5.07
4.82
6.56
Qualifications
1
(1.04)
(1.240
(0.71)
58.87
4.84
4.43
6.32
Hiring recommendation
(1.16)
(1.37)
(1.03)
110.86
3.09
5.00
5.07
Application strength
(1.18)
(1.20)
(0.82)
121.47
3.09
5.09
5.16
Qualifications
2
(1.10)
(1.22)
(1.03)
146.65
2.70
4.82
5.05
Hiring recommendation
(1.29)
(1.23)
(1.03)
71.40
4.45
4.66
6.11
Application strength
(1.09)
(1.01)
(0.95)
99.59
4.09
4.43
6.09
Qualifications
3
(1.31)
(1.15)
(0.94)
99.67
3.95
4.18
5.91
Hiring recommendation
(1.24)
(1.13)
(1.18)
Note: Bolded numbers represent the intended best applicant(s) in each trial.
*p < .05

90

MS

F (2)

Group
differences
(Tukey)

17.91

17.49*

A > B, C

26.14

22.91*

A > B, C

19.44

19.73*

A > B, C

55.43

47.54*

A, C > B

60.74

48.62*

A, C > B

73.33

52.08*

A, C > B

35.70

35.23*

B > A, C

49.80

38.17*

B > A, C

49.84

35.55*

B > A, C

Table F1 (cont’d)
26.65
4.58
4.64
5.88
(1.74)
(1.55)
(1.09)
19.71
4.54
4.48
5.60
Qualifications
4
(1.84)
(1.71)
(1.50)
19.11
4.29
4.28
5.36
Hiring recommendation
(1.88)
(1.88)
(1.60)
167.29
3.18
5.00
5.89
Application strength
(1.08)
(1.06)
(1.02)
227.70
2.64
4.95
5.73
Qualifications
5
(1.04)
(1.28)
(1.15)
226.68
2.59
4.89
5.68
Hiring recommendation
(1.30)
(1.33)
(1.22)
Note: Bolded numbers represent the intended best applicant(s) in each trial.
Application strength

*p < .05

91

13.32

6.05*

B > A, C

9.85

3.46*

B > A, C

9.55

2.98*

B > A, C

83.64

75.47*

C>B>A

113.85

84.98*

C>B>A

113.34

68.77*

C>B>A

Appendix G
Table G1: Study 3 Application Piloting Results
Candidate's racial ID as perceived by White participants
Candidate's racial
identification

Low

High

Mean
(SD)

Mean
(SD)

3.26
(1.66)

4.71
(2.02)

*p < .05

92

t (33)
-2.27*

Appendix H
Piloted racist and sexist comments
Comments given to explain a seemingly racist hiring choice
1. “He just didn’t seem like a hard worker.”
2. “I just felt like he came off as too confident in his cover letter, like he seemed entitled or
something.”
3. “I just kinda feel like with Affirmative Action and everything some people are getting
jobs that other people deserve more.”
4. “My dad has worked with people like that, you know who look really good on paper, and
then they end up stealing from the company or something.”
5. “His application just seemed too good to be true. I’ve seen people make up stuff like
that.”
6. “He didn’t seem very trustworthy. Like, why didn’t he list people from his first job as
references? It makes you wonder what happened there.”
7. “When someone like that went to a good school or held a prestigious position, I always
wonder if they were really qualified for it or if was just filling some sort of quota or
something.”
8. “I wasn’t sure if he’d make a good impression to clients. We don’t want people
answering the phones all ghetto,”
9. “I’m a little worried about him using a lot of slang and jive.”
10. “I don’t know if he’d dress appropriately. We have to think about how he’d represent the
company.”
11. “I’m concerned he may not be the most presentable and that could be a bad reflection on
our company.”
12. “I’m not sure if he would ‘fit in’ here, ya know?”
13. “He seems like the kind of guy who would be late a lot.”
14. “I think he might make the clients uncomfortable and scare away all of our business.”
15. “I just got the impression that he wouldn’t take the job seriously enough.”
16. “He seems like he might draw in the wrong crowd, know what I mean?”

93

17. “I just get the impression that he wouldn’t be very responsible.”
18. “He didn’t seem like he would have much common sense.”
19. “I don’t want to turn our office all ghetto, ya know?”
20. “He doesn’t seem to be very intellectual.”
21. “If we hire him we would constantly have to be all politically correct.”

Comments given to explain a seemingly sexist hiring choice
1. “I’d be afraid that she’d just have kids and quit after a couple of years.”
2. “I figured she’d cause a lot of distractions at the office”
3. “My dad’s company employs a lot of women, and there are a lot of problems with them
claiming sexual harassment and stuff.”
4. “I just kinda feel like with Affirmative Action and everything some people are getting
jobs that other people deserve more.”
5. “This position seems like it would involve working with numbers a lot and I didn’t get
the sense that she’d be up to it”
6. “I just get the sense that she’d get stressed out easily. I hate working with people like
that.”
7. “I worry that she’d just be here to socialize.”
8. “My dad said that most women at his company take really long lunch breaks to go
shopping and stuff.”
9. “We need someone who can think about things logically.”
10. “I get the impression that she’d be really moody and emotional. It’d be easier not to deal
with all that.”
11. “We need someone who’s gonna take the job seriously.”
12. “It seems like whenever you have a lot of women working somewhere everything gets all
catty and gossipy.”
13. “We don’t need an employee who’s gonna spend an hour a day in the bathroom messing
with her hair or make-up or something.”
14. “All the women I’ve know have been really indecisive and this job involves a lot of
decision-making.
94

15. “Who knows what we’d have to put up with during ‘that time of the month’?”
16. “She just doesn’t seem like the type of person who could get the job done.”
17. “My dad’s company employs a lot of women, and it seems like they’re always missing
work for family stuff.”
18. “She might be too soft for this job. It takes a thick skin to work in business.”
19. “Her resume just didn’t seem that believable. Like it makes me wonder what she had to
do to get those qualifications.”
20. “We want to present a strong image for the company and I’m not sure she would
contribute to that.”
21. “We’d have to worry about her crying and stuff if she doesn’t do well. Or worse, worry
about her getting on some sort of power trip if she does do well.”

Questions asked about each comment

How likely is it that a typical MSU student would say something like this?
1 – not at all likely, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – extremely likely

To what extent do you think this is an appropriate or acceptable comment to make to another
student?
1 – totally inappropriate, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – totally appropriate

How rational does this comment seem to you?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – extremely

How hostile does this comment seem to you?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - extremely

How funny does this comment seem to you?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - extremely

How politically incorrect does this comment seem to you?
95

1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - extremely

How sexist (offensive to women) does this comment seem to you?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - extremely

How racist (offensive to racial minorities) does this comment seem to?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - extremely

How offended would you be, personally, if you heard this comment?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 - extremely

How offended do you think other people would be if they heard this comment?
1 – not at all, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7 – extremely

What do you think you would do if the person you were talking with made this comment? (check
all that apply)
____ agree with the person
____ laugh
____ brush it off or change the subject
____ ask what was meant by the comment
____ make a face, roll my eyes, etc.
____ disagree with the person
____ try to educate the person
____ say that the comment was offensive to me
____ point out that the comment might be offensive to other people
____ walk away, leave
____ tell someone else about the comment
____ other (please specify) ________________

96

Appendix I
Table I1: Study 1 & Study 3 comment piloting results
Means and standard deviations by question asked about comment (see Appendix H)
Comment
number

Typical

Rational

Hostile

Funny

Politically
correct

Sexist

Racist

1

3.5 0
(1.54)

3.03
(1.73)

3.82
(1.64)

2.30
(1.71)

4.01
(1.91)

2.47
(1.72)

4.12
(2.17)

4.32
(1.89)

4.35
(1.66)

3.11
(1.31)

2

3.31
(1.31)

2.89
(1.28)

3.34
(1.35)

2.38
(1.53)

3.28
(1.67)

2.20
(1.41)

3.41
(1.73)

3.74
(1.46)

3.92
(1.66)

3.36
(1.37)

3

3.84
(1.57)

3.11
(1.71)

4.46
(1.74)

1.86
(1.38)

4.47
(1.84)

3.21
(2.06)

5.25
(1.75)

4.41
(1.85)

5.09
(1.56)

2.87
(1.72)

4

3.27
(1.40)

2.60
(1.39)

4.47
(1.81)

2.09
(1.55)

4.27
(1.95)

2.69
(1.61)

4.23
(2.00)

4.16
(1.81)

4.43
(1.83)

2.88
(1.69)

5

3.57
(1.40)

2.71
(1.37)

3.64
(1.77)

2.05
(1.40)

3.92
(1.79)

2.55
(1.72)

3.81
(1.96)

4.01
(1.83)

4.24
(1.80)

3.27
(1.59)

6

3.61
(1.49)

3.36
(1.61)

3.55
(1.37)

1.89
(1.34)

3.67
(1.70)

2.38
(1.69)

3.39
(1.83)

3.61
(1.56)

3.93
(1.40)

3.64
(1.32)

7

3.35
(1.44)

2.51
(1.33)

4.27
(1.81)

2.09
(1.60)

4.19
(1.85)

3.01
(1.96)

4.62
(1.98)

4.31
(1.75)

4.81
(1.73)

2.72
(1.38)

8

3.36
(1.80)

2.05
(1.55)

5.42
(1.78)

2.31
(1.74)

5.33
(1.80)

2.72
(1.88)

6.03
(1.56)

5.16
(1.83)

5.57
(1.54)

2.23
(1.71)

3.35
2.32
4.33
2.18
(1.62)
(1.43)
(1.89)
(1.66)
Note: Bolded rows represent comments selected for use.

5.04
(1.79)

2.66
(1.90)

5.35
(1.81)

4.66
(1.85)

5.07
(1.69)

2.55
(1.49)

9

97

Personally Offending
Appropriate
offending to others

Table I1 (cont’d)
10

3.50
(1.52)

2.62
(1.80)

3.85
(1.86)

1.97
(1.45)

4.24
(1.96)

2.66
(1.84)

4.54
(2.01)

4.19
(1.82)

4.50
(1.77)

3.26
(1.71)

11

3.59
(1.59)

2.77
(1.66)

4.12
(1.82)

1.88
(1.37)

4.35
(1.81)

2.68
(1.85)

4.55
(1.84)

4.08
(1.79)

4.56
(1.78)

3.11
(1.52)

12

3.58
(1.73)

2.36
(1.36)

4.18
(1.91)

2.08
(1.69)

4.50
(1.93)

2.95
(1.03)

4.89
(1.87)

4.49
(1.87)

4.89
(1.60)

2.88
(1.75)

13

3.58
(1.69)

2.37
(1.47)

4.41
(1.75)

2.11
(1.59)

4.36
(1.81)

2.75
(1.93)

4.55
(2.02)

4.37
(1.71)

4.70
(1.70)

2.97
(1.66)

14

3.04
(1.67)

1.82
(1.12)

4.88
(1.90)

2.01
(1.58)

5.07
(1.82)

2.93
(1.97)

5.15
(1.89)

4.77
(1.85)

5.21
(1.59)

2.30
(1.47)

15

3.58
(1.54)

2.58
(1.52)

4.00
(1.73)

1.89
(1.47)

3.96
(1.87)

2.58
(1.75)

4.26
(1.85)

4.01
(1,86)

4.39
(1.82)

2.96
(1.38)

16

3.35
(1.82)

2.12
(1.28)

4.62
(1.83)

2.24
(1.86)

4.93
(1.71)

2.99
(1.97)

5.12
(1.63)

4.68
(1.75)

5.12
(1.44)

2.56
(1.52)

17

3.46
(1.60)

2.36
(1.42)

4.08
(1.72)

2.04
(1.63)

4.45
(1.67)

2.74
(1.93)

4.42
(1.80)

4.24
(1.70)

4.66
(1.58)

3.05
(1.40)

18

3.34
(1.71)

2.24
(1.39)

4.52
(1.80)

1.88
(1.30)

4.66
(1.73)

2.89
(2.00)

4.59
(1.83)

4.50
(1.70)

4.89
(1.61)

2.71
(1.42)

19

3.27
(1.82)

1.81
(1.29)

5.23
(1.88)

1.95
(1.44)

5.68
(1.67)

3.00
(2.16)

5.97
(1.65)

5.23
(1.90)

5.82
(1.54)

2.04
(1.54)

20

3.19
(1.52)

2.35
(1.54)

4.30
(1.67)

2.00
(1.49)

4.29
(1.75)

2.66
(1.83)

4.51
(1.92)

4.41
(1.79)

4.68
(1.63)

2.77
(1.47)

3.19
2.26
4.33
1.96
(1.72)
(1.46)
(1.60)
(1.44)
Note: Bolded rows represent comments selected for use.

5.24
(1.67)

2.92
(2.05)

5.00
(1.81)

4.66
(1.71)

4.95
(1.58)

2.74
(1.63)

21

98

Appendix J
Table J1: Study 2 comment piloting results
Means and standard deviations by question asked about comment (see Appendix H)
Comment
number

Typical

Rational

Hostile

Funny

Politically
correct

Sexist

Racist

1

2.88
(1.08)

2.41
(1.10)

4.13
(1.54)

3.25
(1.75)

4.84
(1.69)

5.15
(1.80)

2.48
(2.87)

4.64
(1.68)

4.71
(1.38)

2.41
(1.02)

2

3.20
(1.36)

2.62
(1.27)

3.85
(1.55)

2.88
(1.72)

4.29
(1.68)

4.70
(1.70)

2.59
(1.77)

4.10
(1.70)

4.52
(1.55)

2.92
(1.34)

3

2.95
(1.38)

2.85
(1.40)

4.26
(1.53)

2.60
(1.53)

4.71
(1.41)

5.27
(1.65)

2.35
(1.67)

4.09
(1.89)

4.75
(1.66)

2.85
(1.36)

4

3.95
(1.63)

3.53
(1.49)

3.73
(1.69)

2.38
(1.54)

3.71
(1.56)

2.95
(1.70)

3.83
(1.87)

3.22
(1.77)

4.20
(1.62)

3.58
(1.44)

5

3.19
(1.52)

2.96
(1.66)

3.83
(1.88)

2.62
(1.74)

3.87
(1.93)

4.68
(1.96)

2.66
(1.97)

4.08
(2.01)

4.41
(1.90)

2.92
(1.61)

6

3.55
(1.51)

2.97
(1.45)

3.78
(1.61)

2.31
(1.52)

3.51
(1.61)

3.90
(1.83)

2.25
(1.70)

3.47
(1.78)

3.90
(1.71)

3.61
(1.55)

7

3.32
(1.55)

2.80
(1.61)

3.66
(1.73)

2.71
(1.71)

3.95
(1.72)

4.54
(1.78)

2.27
(1.67)

3.68
(1.73)

4.47
(1.67)

3.20
(1.39)

8

2.80
(1.31)

2.20
(1.27)

3.86
(1.88)

2.93
(1.88)

4.53
(1.70)

5.29
(1.68)

2.39
(1.92)

4.10
(1.90)

4.88
(1.74)

2.85
(1.51)

3.68
3.42
3.45
2.14
(1.77)
(2.01)
(1.98)
(1.56)
Note: Bolded rows represent comments selected for use.

3.85
(2.05)

3.95
(2.35)

2.39
(1.98)

3.75
(2.19)

4.05
(2.16)

3.56
(2.01)

9

99

Personally Offending
Appropriate
offending to others

Table J1 (cont’d)
10

3.46
(1.43)

2.69
(1.58)

4.17
(1.88)

2.34
(1.58)

4.14
(1.88)

4.71
(2.10)

2.19
(1.77)

4.12
(2.04)

4.59
(1.85)

3.08
(1.66)

11

3.95
(1.56)

3.32
(1.93)

3.46
(1.94)

1.86
(1.28)

3.66
(2.00)

3.90
(2.28)

2.36
(1.94)

3.75
(2.24)

4.03
(2.08)

3.64
(2.00)

12

3.44
(1.47)

2.61
(1.49)

4.07
(1.94)

2.81
(1.82)

4.63
(1.76)

5.64
(1.37)

2.51
(2.09)

4.14
(1.89)

4.86
(1.74)

2.56
(1.50)

13

2.91
(1.49)

2.16
(1.40)

4.47
(1.99)

2.60
(1.73)

4.50
(1.97)

5.48
(1.90)

2.44
(1.97)

4.26
(2.21)

4.86
(1.88)

2.48
(1.59)

14

2.98
(1.50)

2.29
(1.45)

4.22
(1.95)

2.21
(1.63)

4.29
(1.92)

5.12
(1.73)

2.39
(1.90)

4.17
(1.78)

4.79
(1.67)

2.88
(1.50)

15

3.19
(1.56)

2.40
(1.43)

4.39
(1.97)

2.83
(1.87)

4.66
(2.08)

5.84
(1.63)

2.30
(1.92)

4.79
(2.08)

5.47
(1.66)

2.45
(1.91)

16

3.34
(1.46)

2.84
(1.51)

3.59
(1.78)

2.09
(1.42)

3.67
(1.85)

4.16
(2.02)

2.35
(1.92)

3.76
(2.03)

4.07
(1.86)

3.67
(1.74)

17

2.91
(1.44)

2.52
(1.35)

3.51
(1.79)

1,98
(1.43)

3.88
(1.79)

4.62
(1.75)

2.21
(1.82)

3.83
(1.86)

4.40
(1.66)

3.14
(1.61)

18

3.17
(1.44)

2.52
(1.48)

3.88
(1.86)

2.22
(1.63)

4.09
(1.94)

4.57
(1.77)

2.29
(1.90)

3.81
(1.84)

4.30
(1.75)

3.33
(1.48)

19

2.86
(1.36)

2.19
(1.33)

4.21
(2.11)

2.33
(1.62)

4.72
(1.86)

5.00
(2.04)

2.44
(1.95)

4.50
(2.05)

5.00
(2.05)

2.81
(1.75)

20

3.09
(1.53)

2.57
(1.59)

3.45
(1.76)

2.03
(1.46)

4.21
(1.79)

4.65
(1.70)

2.36
(1.91)

3.88
(1.70)

4.47
(1.73)

3.40
(1.69)

2.79
2.09
4.79
2.56
(1.55)
(1.49)
(1.66)
(1.67)
Note: Bolded rows represent comments selected for use.

4.84
(1.68)

5.52
(1.72)

2.41
(1.98)

4.78
(1.90)

5.25
(1.64)

2.44
(1.60)

21

100

Appendix K
Demographics
We are interested in some information about who you are. Please answer the following
questions.

What is your gender? _____ Female _____ Male

What is your age? __________

What is your racial group (please check all that apply)?
_____ White / Caucasian
_____ Black / African American
_____ Asian or Pacific Islander
_____ Hispanic / Latino / Latina
_____ Native American / American Indian
_____ Other (please describe) ______________________________________

Are you a United States citizen?

Yes

No

If no, at what age did you move to the U.S.? ___________________

101

Appendix L
Negative affect
(Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988)
When assessing trait negative affect, the following directions will be used.
In your day-to-day life, to what extent do you typically feel each of the following emotions?

When assessing state negative affect, the following directions will be used.
To what extent do you feel each of the following emotions right now?

“1 - not at all” to “7 – extremely” scale

____ irritable
____ distressed
____ ashamed
____ upset
____ nervous
____ guilty
____ angry
____ hostile
____ active
____ afraid
____ jittery

102

Appendix M
Race/gender centrality
(original and modified version of Seller et al.’s, 1997 Multidimensional Inventory of Black
Identity)
1 – “strongly disagree” to 7 – “strongly agree” scale
1. Overall, being a person of my race/gender has very little to do with how I feel about myself. (R)
2. In general, being a person of my race/gender is an important part of my self-image.
3. My destiny is tied to the destiny of other people of my race/gender.
4. Being a person of my race/gender is unimportant to my sense of what kind of a person I am. (R)
5. I have a strong sense of belonging to people of my race/gender.
6. I have a strong attachment to other people of my race/gender.
7. Being a person of my race/gender is an important reflection of who I am.
8. Being a person of my race/gender is not a major factor in my social relationships. (R)

103

Appendix N
Belief in a Just World
(Lerner, 1980)
1 – “strongly disagree” to 7 – “strongly agree” scale
1. I’ve found that a person rarely deserves the reputation he has.
2. Basically, the world is a just place.
3. People who get “lucky breaks” have usually earned their good fortune.
4. Careful drivers are just as likely to get hurt in traffic accidents as careless ones.
5. It is a common occurrence for a guilty person to get off free in American courts.
6. Students almost always deserve the grades they receive in school.
7. Men who keep in shape have little chance of suffering a heart attack.
8. The political candidate who sticks up for his principles rarely gets elected.
9. It is rare for an innocent man to be wrongly sent to jail.
10. In professional sports, any fouls and infractions never get called by the referee.
11. By and large, people deserve what they get.
12. When parents punish their children, it is almost always for good reasons.
13. Good deeds often go unnoticed and unrewarded.
14. Although evil men may hold political power for a while, in the general course of history good wins
out.
15. In almost any business or profession, people who do their job well rise to the top.
16. American parents tend to overlook the things most to be admired in their children.
17. It is often impossible for a person to receive a fair trial in the USA.
18. People who meet misfortune have often brought it on themselves.
19. Crime doesn’t pay.
20. Many people suffer through absolutely no fault of their own.

104

Appendix O
Prejudicial attitudes
1 - “strongly disagree” to 7 – “strongly agree” scale
Modern Racism (McConahey, 1986)
1. It is easy to understand the anger of black people in America.

2. Blacks have more influence upon school desegregation plans than they ought to have.
3. Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.
4. Over the past few years blacks have gotten more economically than they deserve.
5. Over the past few years the government and news media have shown more respect to blacks
than they deserve.
6. Blacks should not push themselves where they're not wanted.
7. Discrimination against blacks is no longer a problem in the United States.
Modern Sexism (Swim, Aikin, Hall, & Hunter, 1995)
1. Discrimination against women is no longer a problem in the United States.
2. Women often miss out on good jobs due to sexual discrimination. (R)
3. It is rare to see women treated in a sexist manner on television.
4. On average, people in our society treat husbands and wives equally.
5. Society has reached a point where women and men have equal opportunities for achievement.
6. It is easy to understand the anger of women’s groups in America. (R)
7. It is easy to understand why women’s groups are still concerned about societal limitations of
women’s opportunities. (R)
8. Over the past few years, the government and news media have been showing more concern
about the treatment of women than is warranted by women’s actual experiences.
105

Appendix P
Efficacy about confronting
(Kaiser & Miller, 2004)
1 – “strongly disagree” to 7 – “strongly agree”

1. I am quite skilled at confronting people who are offensive.
2. I come across competently when confronting people who are offensive.
3. I am capable of effectively informing people who are offensive that their behavior is
inappropriate.
4. I worry that I won’t be able to effectively communicate my dissatisfaction to people who are
offensive. (R)
5. I feel very confident when I interact with people who are offensive.
6. I experience anxiety when I confront people who are offensive. (R)

106

Appendix Q
Table Q1: Coding Examples
Instant Message Conversation examples
Participant

Example

Info
Study 2
(sexism);
female
participant

Confederate: oh ok, I picked A. B seemed good but her resume just didn’t seem believable. Like it
makes me wonder what she had to do to get those qualifications.
Participant: I did not take it that way in the slightest. We would have to check her references "if
this was real lol", but she seems the most qualified. Two internships and a job. She spoke eloquently
and with sophistication of her experience. That's why I picked her.
Confederate: i don’t see what the problem is...
Participant: You are being sexist.
Confederate: umm ok. whatever, ‘m just telling you what I think
Participant: I understand that but that comment was sexist. Just because the applicant is a woman
you should not have said that. Think before you speak.
Confederate: If it matters that much to you let’s just pick your person and move on
Participant: Don't patronize me but that is fine with me. Moving on

107

Strength

Tone

Code

Code

1.83

-2.23

Table Q1 (cont’d)
Study 3

Confederate: I picked A. B was ok, but if this was for real i feel like he would scare away all of the

(racism

business, know what i mean? so i went with A

w/ID
condition);
high ID

-0.42

-0.10

-0.05

0.43

Participant: based on his community organizations? b's community organizations?
Confederate : yeah
Participant: I will agree with A then. next?

condition
Study 2
(sexism);
female
participant

Confederate: ok, i picked A. B seemed good but my dad’s company employs a lot of women and it
seems like they’re always missing work for family stuff. so i went with A.
Participant: lol good point, but I still like the experience and the cover letter and resume doesn't
specify personal matters, so I gotta stick with B.
Confederate: whatever, I’m just telling you what i think.
Participant: I know I've considered your opinion
Confederate: i dunno whatever
Participant: Ok so how can we come to a compromise?
Confederate: ok if it matters that much to you, let’s just pick your guys and move on
Participant: ok

108

Table Q1 (cont’d)
Study 3

Confederate: I picked A. B was ok, but if this was for real I feel like he could turn the office all

(racism

ghetto, know what i mean? so i went with A.

w/ID
condition);
low ID
condition

-0.75

2.13

1.38

1.83

Participant: ghetto? cuz hes black? you know I’m black...haha I’m just kidding...just trying to spice
up this dull experiment. nah A is fine we can go with that.
Confederate: hahaha you scared me! i didn’t mean it to be taken so offensively, but then i thought
you were. ok A it is.
Participant: haha no i just thought it would be funny (yes I’m white btw)
Confederate: ok cool

Study 2
(sexism);
male
participant

Confederate: i went with A on this one. B did seem good, but it seems like whenever you have a lot
of women working somewhere everything gets all catty and gossipy. so i went with A.
Participant: I disagree with the woman stereotype
Confederate: just telling you what i think...
Participant: A just seemed liked they had too much freedom
Confederate: i think he'd fit the job description ok though
Participant: well women need to work too lol
Confederate: yeah guess you have a point there. we can go with B if you really want. i don't care
that much
Participant i hear you on that. let's just go with B

109

Table Q1 (cont’d)
Essay Examples
Participant

Response Strength

Example

Info

Yes/No

Study 3

My partner seems pretty cool. They didn't argue about anything and were easy to talk to.

(racism

Code

Tone
Code

We ended up agreeing on most things, which made this experiment easy. Even when we

w/ID

1.00

---

-0.10

1.00

-0.99

0.09

1.00

0.35

0.79

1.00

1.56

0.09

did disagree, we ended up choosing the same person in the end, anyway.

condition);
low ID
condition
Study 1

My partner and I seemed to have sort of the same ideas when it came to whom we would

(racism);

choose, except for one folder when I was a little surprised at his/her decision. When it

Black
participant
Study 2
(sexism);
female
participant

comes to interacting with people online it seems as if they can take off their "masks" and
be their true selves.
I feel that my partner is very opinionated. I feel that they had a pretty good sense of who
would be a good candidate and who would not. At one point I was a little uneasy
because they made the comment that they choose a man over a women because women
get catty and gossipy. But overall they were very easy to agree with.

Study 1

Seemed like a knowledgeable person but was racist. It's cool to have your own beliefs,

(racism);

but you cannot carry them over into your professional life.

race
unknown
110

Table Q1 (cont’d)
Study 3

My partner was a racist pig. Nothing bothers me more than when people are ignorant.

(racism

He or she had no concept on hiring since they pick a poorer choice over one that was

w/ID

clearly better, just because the better pick was African American. Its people like this

condition);

1.00

1.91

-2.79

1.00

0.68

0.95

that make the American workplace so hostile.

high ID
condition
Study 1

Me and my partner agreed on a candidate on most of the sets. My partner did a good job

(racism);

explaining why he or she chose a certain candidate. We disagreed on one major one, and

White
participant

it really offended me that his/her choice seemed to be on skin color alone. Other than
this, I believe we worked well together.

111

Table 1
Study 1 -Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables by Participant Race
Overall Sample
Variable

Black Participants
(N = 44)
Standard
Mean
Deviation

White Participants
(N = 78)
Standard
Mean
Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Trait Anger

1.00

4.00

2.21

0.80

2.04

0.62

-1.25 (114)

State Anger

1.00

4.43

1.61

0.67

1.57

0.80.

-0.25 (118)

Racial Identity

1.00

7.00

4.64

1.09

3.61

1.15

-4.65* (114)

Just World Beliefs

1.93

6.54

4.10

1.15

4.47

0.90

1.88 (114)

Modern Racism

1.00

4.86

2.01

0.73

2.73

1.05

3.91* (114)

Confronting Efficacy

1.50

7.00

4.43

1.13

4.46

1.28

0.15 (114)

IM Confrontation Strength

-0.84

1.87

0.64

0.83

0.64

0.79

-0.05 (109)

IM Overall Tone

-1.76

2.04

-0.02

0.80

0.03

0.79

0.27 (115)

0.00

1.00

0.25

0.44

0.20

0.40

-0.62 (113)

Essay Confrontation
Strength

-0.99

1.56

0.46

0.77

0.75

0.75

0.93 (23)

Essay Overall Tone

-1.73

2.78

0.09

0.79

-0.01

0.79

-0.61 (107)

Essay Response Yes/No

* p < .05

112

t (df)

Table 2
Study 1 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables
1

2

2. Trait Anger

0.12

(0.79)

3. State Anger

0.02

0.05

4. Racial Identity

0.40* -0.05

1. Participant Race

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

---

(0.91)
0.17

(0.86)

5. Just World Beliefs

-0.17

-0.04

-0.10

-0.01

(0.74)

6. Modern Racism

-0.34*

0.01

-0.11

-0.09

0.15

(0.82)

7. Confronting Efficacy

-0.01

-0.11

-0.07

-0.05

0.08

-0.16

(0.85)

8. IM Confront. Strength

0.01

-0.13

0.18

-0.08

-0.14

0.07

-0.03

0.02

0.22*

0.10

-0.04

-0.41* (0.47)

10. Essay Response Yes/No

0.06

-0.05

0.25*

0.22*

0.01

-0.09

0.14

0.49* -0.11

----

11. Essay Confront. Strength

-0.19

-0.31

0.17

0.07

0.20

-0.16

0.02

0.44

---

0.06

-0.01

-0.20*

0.04

0.15

0.01

9. IM Overall Tone

12. Essay Overall Tone

0.33*

-0.29* -0.03

(0.85)

-0.25* -0.23*

-0.14

(0.79)

0.39* -0.20* -0.35

(0.70)

Note: Only participants who responded to the comment in their essay have scores for Essay Confrontation Strength, thus a correlation
between Essay Response Yes/No and Confrontation Strength cannot be calculated.
* p < .05

113

Table 3
Study 1 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables by Race
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

0.08

-0.12

-0.16

0.07

9

10

11

-0.02

-0.06

0.02

-0.18

0.14

-0.05

-0.12

0.03

0.38* -0.37*

0.26*

0.23

-0.19

0.16

0.11

0.03

0.07

0.21

0.21

0.04

0.12

0.01

-0.17

0.26* -0.05

0.12

0.09

1. Trait Anger

---

2. State Anger

-0.01

3. Racial Identity

-0.01

0.24

4. Just World Beliefs

0.14

-0.19

-0.11

5. Modern Racism

0.01

-0.06

-0.12

0.05

6. Confronting Efficacy

0.10

-029

-0.18

0.23

0.01

7. IM Confront. Strength

-0.26

0.22

0.05

-0.11

-0.19

0.11

-0.09

-0.28

0.15

-0.08

0.12

9. Essay Response Yes/No

-0.06

0.21

0.22

0.10

-0.24

0.08

0.51* -0.25

---

----

-0.07

10. Essay Confront. Strength

-0.74*

0.01

-0.09

0.33

-0.53

0.19

0.86* -0.53

----

---

-.40

0.22

-0.20

-0.02

0.24

-0.09

-0.16

8. IM Overall Tone

11. Essay Overall Tone

---

---

0.45*

---

---

-0.24* -0.05

8

-0.23* -0.15
---

0.20
---

0.11

0.15

-0.01

-0.16

0.07

-0.11

0.19

-0.11

-0.29*

-0.40*

0.47*

0.19

-0.17

-0.43* ---

-0.33

-0.02

0.06

0.37* -0.42* -0.46

0.37*

---

Note: Correlations among Black participants appear below the diagonal and correlations among White participants appear above
the diagonal. Only participants who responded to the comment in their essay have scores for Essay Confrontation Strength, thus a
correlation between Essay Response Yes/No and Confrontation Strength cannot be calculated.
* p < .05

114

Table 4
Hypothesis 1A – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Race
IM
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 111)

IM Overall
Tone
(N = 117)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

0.01
(0.16)

-0.04
(0.15)

Δ R2

0.00

0.00

Total R2

0.00

0.00

*p < .05

115

Table 5
Hypothesis 1A – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Race

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 116)

Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 25)

Essay
Overall
Tone
(N = 109)

ß (SE)
Participant Race

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.29
(0.47)

1.33

-0.28
(0.31)

0.10
(0.16)

Δ R2

---

0.04

0.00

Total R2

---

0.04

0.03

*p < .05

116

Table 6
Hypothesis 1B – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by State Anger
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

0.07
(0.16)

0.04
(0.16)

-0.08
(0.16)

-0.06
(0.16)

Trait Anger

-0.16
(0.11)

-0.17
(0.11)

0.03
(0.11)

0.05
(0.11)

0.32*
(0.10)

State Anger

-0.31*
(0.10)

Δ R2

0.02

0.12*

0.00

0.09*

Total R2

0.02

0.14*

0.00

0.09*

*p < .05

117

Table 7
Hypothesis 1B – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by State Anger
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

0.34
(0.49)

1.40

0.33
(0.50)

1.38

-0.15
(0.32)

-0.07
(0.30)

0.06
(0.17)

0.07
(0.16)

Trait Anger

-0.21
(0.35)

0.81

-0.23
(0.35)

0.79

-0.26
(0.18)

-0.42*
(0.19)

-0.02
(0.12)

-0.01
(0.11)

0.59*
0.28)

1.80

State Anger

0.38
(0.20)

-0.21*
(0.10)

Δ R2

---

---

0.11

0.25

0.00

0.04*

Total R2

---

---

0.11

0.36

0.00

0.04

*p < .05

118

Table 8
Hypothesis 1C – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Racial Identification
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Race

-0.05
(0.09)

-0.11
(0.09)

-0.03
(0.08)

0.02
(0.09)

Racial Identification

0.16
(0.08)

0.20*
(0.09)

-0.01
(0.08)

-0.04
(0.08)

0.19*
(0.09)

Race x Identification

-0.17
(0.09)

Δ R2

0.04

0.07

0.00

0.04

Total R2

0.04

0.11*

0.00

0.04

*p < .05

119

Figure 1
The Effect of Racial Identity on Instant Message Confrontation Strength among White and Black Participants

Instant Message Confrontation Strength

1.0
0.9
0.8
0.7
0.6
White
Black

0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0.0
Low Racial Identity

High Racial Identity

120

Table 9
Hypothesis 1C – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial Identification
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Race

-0.08
(0.26)

0.93

-0.12
(0.32)

0.89

-0.12
(0.17)

-0.05
(0.22)

0.02
(0.09)

0.03
(0.09)

Racial
Identification

0.62*
(0.29)

1.86

0.64*
(0.30)

1.89

0.09
(0.17)

0.07
(0.18)

0.02
(0.09)

0.01
(0.09)

0.08
(0.32)

1.08

Race x
Identification

-0.12
(0.19)

-0.03
(0.09)

Δ R2

---

---

0.03

0.05

0.00

0.00

Total R2

---

---

0.03

0.08

0.00

0.00

*p < .05

121

Table 10
Hypothesis 1D – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Just World Beliefs
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant Race

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.05
(0.16)

0.02
(0.17)

-0.07
(0.16)

-0.01
(0.16)

-0.06
(0.08)

Just World Beliefs

0.17*
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.05*

Total R2

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.05

*p < .05

122

Table 11
Hypothesis 1D – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Just World Beliefs
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant Race

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.30
(0.49)

1.36

0.31
(0.49)

1.37

-0.19
(0.33)

-0.19
(0.33)

0.06
(0.16)

0.10
(0.16)

0.04
(0.24)

1.04

Just World
Beliefs

0.14
(0.15)

0.12
(0.08)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.06

0.00

0.03

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.08

0.00

0.03

*p < .05

123

Table 12
Hypothesis 1E – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Modern Racism
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant Race

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.05
(0.16)

-0.03
(0.17)

-0.07
(0.16)

-0.02
(0.17)

-0.12
(0.08)

Modern Racism

0.07
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.01

Total R2

0.00

0.02

0.00

0.01

*p < .05

124

Table 13
Hypothesis 1E – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Modern Racism
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant
Race

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.30
(0.49)

1.36

0.18
(0.51)

1.19

-0.19
(0.33)

-0.45
(0.38)

0.01
(0.10)

0.07
(0.17)

-0.20
(0.26)

0.82

Modern
Racism

-0.27
(0.22)

0.02
(0.08)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.09

0.00

0.00

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.11

0.00

0.00

*p < .05

125

Table 14
Hypothesis 1F – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant Race

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.05
(0.16)

0.05
(0.16)

-0.07
(0.16)

-0.07
(0.16)

0.05
(0.06)

Confronting Efficacy

-0.03
(0.06)

Δ R2

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

Total R2

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

*p < .05

126

Table 15
Hypothesis 1F – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant Race

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.30
(0.49)

1.36

0.33
(0.49)

1.39

-0.19
(0.33)

-0.19
(0.34)

0.06
(0.16)

0.05
(0.16)

0.33
(0.21)

1.39

Confronting
Efficacy

0.00
(0.14)

-0.16*
(0.06)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.06*

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.04

0.00

0.06*

*p < .05

127

Table 16
Hypothesis 1G – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation
Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

-0.13
(0.18)

-0.12
(0.18)

0.01
(0.17)

-0.04
(0.18)

Racial Identification

0.17*
(0.08)

0.16
(0.09)

-0.03
(0.08)

0.00
(0.08)

Just World Beliefs

-0.08
(0.08)

-0.09
(0.08)

0.17*
(0.08)

0.20*
(0.08)

0.05
(0.08)

Identity x Just World Beliefs

-0.11
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.04

0.05

0.05

0.07

Total R2

0.04

0.09

0.05

0.12

*p < .05

128

Table 17
Hypothesis 1G – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

-0.17
(0.55)

0.85

-0.24
(0.56)

0.79

-0.26
(0.35)

-0.24
(0.36)

0.09
(0.18)

0.08
(0.18)

Racial
Identification

0.62*
(0.29)

1.86

0.70*
(0.31)

2.01

0.10
(0.17)

0.08
(0.17)

0.00
(0.09)

0.01
(0.09)

Just World
Beliefs

-0.02
(0.24)

0.98

0.10
(0.29)

1.10

0.14
(0.16)

0.05
(0.20)

0.12
(0.08)

0.13
(0.08)

-0.20
(0.27)

0.82

Identity x Just
World Beliefs

0.16
(0.22)

-0.03
(0.08)

Δ R2

---

---

0.07

0.10

0.03

0.03

Total R2

---

---

0.07

0.17

0.03

0.05

*p < .05

129

Table 18
Hypothesis 1H – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

-0.19
(0.19)

-0.19
(0.19)

-0.01
(0.18)

0.01
(0.18)

Racial Identification

0.17*
(0.08)

0.17
(0.09)

-0.02
(0.08)

0.04
(0.09)

Modern Racism

-0.13
(0.08)

-0.13
(0.08)

0.08
(0.08)

0.09
(0.08)

-0.00
(0.10)

Identity x Racism

0.14
(0.10)

Δ R2

0.06

0.06

0.10

0.03

Total R2

0.06

0.11

0.10

0.04

*p < .05

130

Table 19
Hypothesis 1H – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant
Race

-0.29
(0.57)

0.61

-0.30
(0.67)

0.74

-0.50
(0.40)

-0.56
(0.41)

0.06
(0.19)

0.05
(0.19)

Racial
Identification

0.61*
(0.28)

0.03

0.58
(0.33)

1.78

0.08
(0.17)

0.20
(0.22)

0.02
(0.09)

-0.02
(0.10)

Modern Racism

-0.21
(0.27)

0.81

-0.21
(0.27)

0.81

-0.27
(0.22)

-0.34
(0.24)

0.02
(0.09)

0.01
(0.09)

-0.06
(0.37)

0.94

Identity x
Racism

0.22
(0.26)

-0.08
(0.10)

Δ R2

---

---

0.10

0.13

0.00

0.01

Total R2

---

---

0.10

0.23

0.00

0.01

*p < .05

131

Table 20
Hypothesis 1I – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

0.02
(0.17)

-0.02
(0.17)

-0.01
(0.16)

0.01
(0.16)

Confronting Efficacy

0.06
(0.08)

0.06
(0.08)

-0.04
(0.08)

-0.04
(0.08)

Just World Beliefs

-0.07
(0.08)

-0.09
(0.08)

0.17*
(0.08)

0.19*
(0.08)

Efficacy x
Just World Beliefs

0.12
(0.06)

-0.08
(0.06)

Δ R2

0.01

0.05

0.05

0.06

Total R2

0.01

0.06

0.05

0.11

*p < .05

132

Table 21
Hypothesis 1I – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

0.33 (0.50)

1.39

0.23 (0.51)

1.25

-0.21
(0.34)

-0.21
(0.35)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.40 (0.26)

1.49

0.45 (0.28)

1.56

-0.09
(0.19)

-0.09
(0.22)

0.01 (0.24)

1.01

-0.16
(0.27)

0.85

0.38 (0.22)

1.47

Just World
Beliefs
Efficacy x
Just World
Beliefs

0.09 (0.16) 0.14 (0.16)
-0.20*
(0.07)

-0.20*
(0.07)

0.18 (0.18) 0.18 (0.21) 0.14 (0.08) 0.16 (0.08)
-0.13*
(0.06)

0.00 (0.19)

Δ R2

---

---

0.07

0.07

0.09*

0.14*

Total R2

---

---

0.07

0.13

0.09*

0.23*

*p < .05

133

Figure 2
The Effect of Just World Beliefs on Overall Essay Tone at Low and High Levels of Confronting Efficacy

1
0.8
Overall Tone of Essay

0.6
0.4

Low Just World
Beliefs

0.2
0

High Just World
Beliefs

-0.2
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
Low Confronting Efficacy High Confronting Efficacy

134

Table 22
Hypothesis 1J – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 107)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 111)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

-0.03
(0.10)

-0.01
(0.17)

-0.03
(0.17)

-0.00
(0.17)

Confronting Efficacy

0.04
(0.17)

0.04
(0.08)

-0.02
(0.08)

-0.02
(0.08)

Modern Racism

-0.11
(0.08)

-0.11
(0.08)

0.07
(0.08)

0.07
(0.08)

-0.11
(0.08)

Efficacy x Racism

-0.11
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.02

0.04

0.10

0.03

Total R2

0.02

0.07

0.10

0.04

*p < .05

135

Table 23
Hypothesis 1J – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 104)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 110)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Race

0.25
(0.52)

1.28

0.21
(0.52)

1.23

-0.45
(0.39)

-0.45
(0.40)

0.04
(0.17)

0.07
(0.17)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.38
(0.26)

1.46

0.47
(0.29)

1.59

-0.01
(0.17)

0.00
(0.17)

-0.20*
(0.08)

-0.20*
(0.08)

Modern Racism

-0.14
(0.27)

0.87

-0.22
(0.30)

0.81

-0.28
(0.22)

-0.29
(0.23)

-0.02
(0.08)

-0.02
(0.08)

-1.47
(0.32)

1.40

Efficacy x
Racism

0.06
(0.18)

-0.13
(0.08)

Δ R2

---

---

0.09

0.09

0.06

0.09

Total R2

---

---

0.09

0.19

0.06

0.16

*p < .05

136

Table 24
Study 2 -Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables by Participant Race
Overall Sample
Variable

Men
(N = 31)
Standard
Mean
Deviation

Women
(N = 127)
Standard
Mean
Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Trait Anger

1.00

3.86

1.79

0.58

1.93

0.61

0.93 (104)

State Anger

1.00

4.17

1.78

0.87

1.64

0.71

-0.92 (156)

Gender Identity

1.38

7.00

4.44

1.12

4.47

1.00

0.14 (104)

Just World Beliefs

1.75

6.00

4.14

0.83

4.09

0.81

-0.28 (104)

Modern Sexism

1.00

5.88

3.17

1.11

2.81

1.03

-1.41 (104)

Confronting Efficacy

1.50

6.67

4.33

0.97

4.46

1.17

0.47 (104)

IM Confrontation Strength

-0.91

1.83

0.64

0.76

0.64

0.75

0.01 (142)

IM Overall Tone

-3.08

2.23

0.21

0.81

-0.02

0.85

-1.32 (151)

0.00

1.00

0.20

0.41

0.30

0.46

1.10 (151)

Essay Confrontation
Strength

-1.94

1.57

0.73

0.54

0.61

0.77

-0.38 (43)

Essay Overall Tone

-2.14

3.10

0.16

0.86

-0.06

0.92

-1.20 (151)

Essay Response Yes/No

* p < .05

137

t (df)

Table 25
Study 2 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables
1

2

1. Participant Sex

---

2. Trait Anger

-0.09

(0.80)

3. State Anger

0.07

0.03

(0.84)

-0.01

0.03

-0.18

(0.82)

5. Just World Beliefs

0.03

-0.13

-0.02

-0.06

(0.64)

6. Modern Sexism

0.14

0.09

-0.18

-0.11

0.09

(0.88)

7. Confronting Efficacy -0.05

-0.08

-0.14

-0.06

0.07

-0.25*

(0.87)

8. IM Confront.
Strength

-0.01

-0.13

0.05

-0.01

-0.30

0.14

(0.59)

0.11

0.07

-0.23*

0.03

0.13

-0.08

-0.21*

-0.09

-0.05

0.28*

-0.04

-0.04

-0.21*

-0.04

0.42*

-0.17* ---

0.06

-0.18

0.32*

0.22

-0.04

-0.29

-0.01

0.52*

-0.37* ---

0.10

-0.04

-0.16*

-0.15

-0.05

0.05

0.02

4. Gender Identity

9. IM Overall Tone
10. Essay Response
Yes/No
11. Essay Confront.
Strength
12. Essay Overall Tone

3

0.38*
-0.12

4

5

6

7

8

-0.07

9

10

11

12

(0.62)

0.39*

-0.10

(0.82)
-0.44*

(0.72)

Note: Only participants who responded to the comment have scores for IM/Essay Confrontation Strength, thus a correlation between
Essay Response Yes/No and Confrontation Strength cannot be calculated.
* p < .05
138

Table 26
Study 2 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables by Sex
1
1. Trait Anger
2. State Anger

--0.09

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

-0.12

0.36

-0.21

-0.06

0.08

0.09

0.12

-0.37

0.55

-0.37

---

-0.47*

0.08

-0.31

-0.58*

0.66*

0.20

-0.20

0.39* -0.17

3. Gender Identity

-0.05

-0.07

---

-0.14

0.03

0.44

0.12

0.16

-0.50*

0.11

0.01

4. Just World Beliefs

-0.11

-0.06

-0.04

---

0.27

-0.23

-0.14

0.27

-0.03

-0.16

0.19

0.14

-0.18

-0.15

0.05

---

-0.16

-0.59*

0.11

-0.12

0.35

0.31

6. Confronting Efficacy

-0.11

-0.03

-0.16

0.13

-0.27* ---

0.46

-0.10

-0.28

-0.45

0.05

7. IM Confront. Strength

-0.16

0.05

0.02

-0.25*

0.10

-0.29

0.36

-0.21

-0.10

0.12

-0.07

-0.03

-0.74*

0.44*

5. Modern Sexism

0.37*

8. IM Overall Tone

0.07

9. Essay Response Yes/No

0.01

0.19*

0.07

-0.04

-0.22* -0.01

0.46* -0.22* ---

----

0.06

10. Essay Confront. Strength

-0.18

0.33*

0.32

-0.03

-0.41*

0.07

0/58* -0.36* ----

---

-0.51

-0.18

-0.11

-0.01

0.02

11. Essay Overall Tone

0.03

-0.18* -0.32* -0.01

---

-0.17

-0.27* ---

-0.10

0.39* -0,11

-0.46* ---

Note: Correlations among female participants appear below the diagonal and correlations among male participants appear above
the diagonal. Only participants who responded to the comment in their essay have scores for Essay Confrontation Strength, thus a
correlation between Essay Response Yes/No and Confrontation Strength cannot be calculated.
* p < .05

139

Table 27
Hypothesis 2A – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Sex
IM Confrontation
Strength
(N = 144)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 153)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

-0.01
(0.16)

0.23
(0.17)

Δ R2

0.00

0.01

Total R2

0.00

0.01

*p < .05

140

Table 28
Hypothesis 2A – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Sex

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 153)

Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 43)

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 153)

ß (SE)
Participant Sex

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.54
(0.50)

0.58

0.11
(0.33)

0.22
(0.19)

Δ R2

---

0.00

0.01

Total R2

---

0.00

0.01

*p < .05

141

Table 29
Hypothesis 2B – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by State Anger
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 90)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 96)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

0.19
(0.20)

0.06
(0.19)

0.18
(0.22)

0.21
(0.23)

Trait Anger

-0.11
(0.13)

-0.11
(0.12)

0.13
(0.14)

0.13
(0.14)

0.32*
(0.11)

State Anger

-0.08
(0.13)

Δ R2

0.02

0.12

0.02

0.02

Total R2

0.02

0.14

0.02

0.04

*p < .05

142

Table 30
Hypothesis 2B – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by State Anger
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 31)

Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 96)

Step 1

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 97)

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant
Sex

-0.64
(0.62)

0.53

-1.22
(0.73)

0.30

0.42
(0.46)

-0.11
(0.50)

0.08
(0.24)

0.15
(0.24)

Trait Anger

-0.15
(0.37)

0.86

-0.15
(0.39)

0.86

-0.24
(0.27)

-0.22
(0.26)

-0.03
(0.16)

-0.03
(0.16)

1.20*
(0.37)

3.32

State Anger

0.43*
(0.20)

-0.22
(0.14)

Δ R2

---

---

0.00

0.12

0.00

0.03

Total R2

---

---

0.00

0.13

0.00

0.03

*p < .05

143

Table 31
Hypothesis 2C – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Gender Identification
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

0.10
(0.08)

0.10
(0.08)

0.08
(0.08)

0.09
(0.08)

Gender
Identification

0.04
(0.08)

0.04
(0.08)

-0.19*
(0.08)

-0.20*
(0.08)

Sex X
Identification

0.02
(0.08)

0.15
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.02

0.02

0.06*

0.10

Total R2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.16

*p < .05

144

Table 32
Hypothesis 2C – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Gender Identification
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

-0.15
(0.23)

0.87

-0.42
(0.35)

0.66

0.26
(0.17)

0.20
(0.23)

0.07
(0.09)

0.07
(0.09)

Gender
Identification

-0.10
(0.22)

0.91

-0.21
(0.27)

0.82

0.29
(0.16)

0.28
(0.17)

-0.14
(0.09)

-0.14
(0.09)

-0.73*
(0.37)

0.48

Sex X
Identification

-0.07
(0.18)

0.07
(0.09)

Δ R2

---

---

0.06

0.03

0.03

0.03

Total R2

---

---

0.06

0.08

0.03

0.06

*p < .05

145

Figure 3
The Effect of Gender Identification on Essay Response for Women and Men

146

Table 33
Hypothesis 2D – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Just World Beliefs
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant Sex

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.23
(0.19)

0.23
(0.19)

0.22
(0.21)

0.22
(0.22)

-0.01
(0.09)

Just World Beliefs

0.03
(0.10)

Δ R2

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

Total R2

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.01

*p < .05

147

Table 34
Hypothesis 2D – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Just World Beliefs
Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant
Sex

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.35
(0.57)

0.70

-0.35
(0.57)

0.71

0.33
(0.40)

0.34
(0.41)

0.18
(0.24)

0.18
(0.24)

-0.09
(0.26)

0.92

Just World
Beliefs

-0.04
(0.17)

-0.06
(0.11)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.05

0.01

0.02

*p < .05

148

Table 35
Hypothesis 2E – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Modern Sexism
IM
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant
Sex

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.23
(0.19)

0.28
(0.18)

0.22
(0.21)

0.20
(0.22)

Modern
Sexism

-0.21*
(0.07)

0.09
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.02

0.11

0.01

0.02

Total R2

0.02

0.13

0.01

0.04

*p < .05

149

Table 36
Hypothesis 2E – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Modern Sexism
Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant
Sex

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.36
(0.57)

0.70

-0.21
(0.59)

0.81

0.33
(0.40)

0.45
(0.39)

0.18
(0.24)

0.16
(0.24)

-0.44*
(0.22)

0.64

Modern
Sexism

-0.26
(0.14)

0.04
(0.09)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.12

0.01

0.01

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.14

0.01

0.01

*p < .05

150

Table 37
Hypothesis 2F – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy
IM Confrontation
Strength
(N = 93)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant
Sex

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.23
(0.19)

0.26
(0.19)

0.22
(0.21)

0.21
(0.22)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.10
(0.06)

-0.05
(0.07)

Δ R2

0.02

0.04

0.01

0.02

Total R2

0.02

0.06

0.01

0.03

*p < .05

151

Table 38
Hypothesis 2F – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy
Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)
Participant
Sex

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.36
(0.57)

0.70

-0.37
(0.57)

0.69

0.33
(0.40)

0.34
(0.42)

0.18
(0.24)

0.18
(0.24)

-0.09
(0.19)

0.92

Confronting
Efficacy

0.01
(0.12)

0.02
(0.08)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.01

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.05

0.01

0.01

*p < .05

152

Table 39
Hypothesis 2G – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Gender Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
IM
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

0.24
(0.19)

0.23
(0.19)

0.20
(0.21)

0.18
(0.21)

Gender
Identification

0.04
(0.08)

0.06
(0.08)

-0.19*
(0.08)

-0.15
(0.09)

Just World
Beliefs

-0.01
(0.07)

-0.01
(0.07)

0.01
(0.08)

-0.01
(0.08)

Identity X Just
World Beliefs

-0.04
(0.07)

-0.10
(0.08)

Δ R2

0.02

0.02

0.06

0.08

Total R2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.14

*p < .05

153

Table 40
Hypothesis 2G – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Gender Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)

Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Step 1

Step 1 Step 2 Step 1 Step 2

Step 2

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE) ß (SE) ß (SE) ß (SE)

Participant Sex

-0.36
(0.57)

0.70

-0.35
(0.58)

0.71

0.65
(0.43)

0.65
(0.44)

0.17
(0.24)

0.17
(0.24)

Gender
Identification

-0.10
(0.22)

0.90

-0.19
(0.24)

0.83

0.29
(0.17)

0.30
(0.18)

-0.14
(0.09)

-0.11
(0.10)

Just World
Beliefs

-0.08
(0.21)

0.92

-0.04
(0.22)

0.96

-0.06
(0.13)

-0.07
(0.15)

-0.06
(0.09)

-0.07
(0.09)

0.27
(0.23)

1.31

Identity x Just
World Beliefs

-0.03
(0.15)

-0.08
(0.09)

Δ R2

---

---

0.12

0.12

0.03

0.04

Total R2

---

---

0.12

0.25

0.03

0.07

*p < .05

154

Table 41
Hypothesis 2H – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Gender Identification, Modern Sexism, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation
Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

0.28
(0.18)

0.28
(0.19)

0.18
(0.21)

0.18
(0.21)

Gender
Identification

0.02
(0.07)

0.03
(0.08)

-0.18*
(0.08)

-0.19*
(0.09)

Modern Sexism

-0.22*
(0.07)

-0.22*
(0.07)

0.07
(0.09)

0.08
(0.09)

Identity x
Sexism

0.01
(0.08)

-0.02
(0.09)

Δ R2

0.11*

0.11

0.07

0.07

Total R2

0.11*

0.22

0.07

0.14

*p < .05

155

Table 42
Hypothesis 2H – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Gender Identification, Modern Sexism, and their
Interaction
Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

-0.22
(0.59)

0.80

-0.19
(0.59)

0.83

0.68
(0.42)

0.60
(0.44)

0.16
(0.24)

0.15
(0.24)

Gender
Identification

-0.14
(0.22)

0.87

-0.26
(0.25)

0.77

0.24
(0.16)

0.31
(0.19)

-0.13
(0.09)

-0.11
(0.10)

Modern
Sexism

-0.48
(0.24)

0.62

-0.51
(0.25)

0.60

-0.22
(0.15)

-0.19
(0.16)

0.03
(0.09)

0.02
(0.09)

-0.29
(0.27)

0.46

Identity x
Sexism

0.12
(0.17)

0.10
(0.10)

Δ R2

---

---

0.10

0.08

0.03

0.04

Total R2

---

---

0.10

0.18

0.03

0.07

*p < .05

156

Table 43
Hypothesis 2I – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation
Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

0.26
(0.19)

0.23
(0.19)

0.21
(0.22)

0.22
(0.22)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.11
(0.07)

0.12
(0.07)

-0.06
(0.08)

-0.07
(0.08)

Just World
Beliefs

-0.01
(0.07)

0.02
(0.07)

0.03
(0.08)

0.02
(0.09)

Efficacy x Just
World Beliefs

-0.09
(0.06)

0.02
(0.07)

Δ R2

0.04

0.06

0.02

0.02

Total R2

0.04

0.10

0.02

0.04

*p < .05

157

Table 44
Hypothesis 2I – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)

Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant Sex

-0.37
(0.57)

0.69

-0.53
(0.60)

0.59

0.34
(0.42)

0.32
(0.17)

0.19
(0.24)

0.22
(0.24)

Confronting
Efficacy

-0.10
(0.21)

0.91

-0.06
(0.23)

0.94

0.01
(0.14)

0.01
(0.43)

0.02
(0.09)

0.01
(0.09)

Just World
Beliefs

-0.07
(0.21)

0.94

0.07
(0.24)

1.08

-0.03
(0.15)

0.00
(0.14)

-0.05
(0.09)

-0.08
(0.10)

-0.50
(0.22)

0.61

Efficacy x Just
World Beliefs

-0.08
(0.15)

0.09
(0.12)

Δ R2

---

---

0.02

0.04

0.01

0.02

Total R2

---

---

0.02

0.07

0.01

0.03

*p < .05

158

Table 45
Hypothesis 2J – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Modern Sexism, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation
Strength
(N = 93)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant
Sex

0.29
(0.18)

0.29
(0.18)

0.20
(0.22)

0.20
(0.22)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.06
(0.07)

0.06
(0.07)

-0.04
(0.08)

-0.05
(0.09)

Modern
Sexism

-0.21*
(0.07)

-0.20*
(0.08)

0.09
(0.09)

0.08
(0.09)

Efficacy x
Racism

0.03
(0.08)

-0.07
(0.09)

Δ R2

0.12

0.12

0.03

0.03

Total R2

0.12

0.13

0.03

0.6

*p < .05

159

Table 46
Hypothesis 2J – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Modern Sexism, and their
Interaction
Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 32)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 99)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall
Tone
(N = 99)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Participant
Sex

-0.24
(0.59)

0.80

-0.19
(0.59)

0.83

0.43
(0.40)

0.70
(0.38)

0.17
(0.24)

0.17
(0.24)

Confronting
Efficacy

-0.23
(0.22)

0.59

-0.29
(0.23)

0.75

-0.06
(0.13)

-0.18
(0.13)

0.03
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

Modern
Sexism

-0.53
(0.25)

0.48

-0.57
(0.25)

0.56

-0.29
(0.16)

0.51*
(0.16)

0.05
(0.10)

0.04
(0.10)

-0.26
(0.26)

0.77

Efficacy x
Sexism

-0.41*
(0.15)

-0.04
(0.11)

Δ R2

---

---

0.13

0.31*

0.01

0.01

Total R2

---

---

0.13

0.44*

0.01

0.02

*p < .05

160

Figure 4
The Effect of Confronting Efficacy on Essay Confrontation Strength at Low and High Levels of Modern Sexism
2.0

Essay Confrontation Strength

1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0

Low Modern Sexism
High Modern Sexism

-0.5
-1.0
-1.5
-2.0
Low Confronting Efficacy

High Confronting Efficacy

161

Table 47
Study 3 - Means and Standard Deviations of Independent Variables by Condition
Overall Sample
Variable

Low Racial ID candidate
(N =86)
Standard
Mean
Deviation

High Racial ID target
(N =92)
Standard
Mean
Deviation

Minimum

Maximum

Trait Anger

1.00

4.43

2.20

0.78

1.84

0.56

2.42* (77)

State Anger

1.00

4.57

1.82

0.92

4.14

1.61

1.71 (176)

Racial Identity

1.00

7.00

3.45

1.05

3.24

1.32

0.72 (74)

Just World Beliefs

1.00

6.00

4.17

0.93

4.35

0.85

-0.85 (75)

Modern Racism

1.00

7.00

2.94

1.23

3.13

1.32

-0.63 (75)

Confronting Efficacy

1.00

6.17

3.97

1.18

4.14

1.29

-0.63 (76)

IM Confrontation Strength

-0.75

2.24

0.56

0.79

0.67

0.80

-0.94 (168)

IM Overall Tone

-2.76

2.13

0.01

0.88

-0.01

0.86

0.08 (169)

0.00

1.00

0.26

0.44

0.24

0.43

0.27 (166)

Essay Confrontation
Strength

-0.83

1.55

0.59

0.75

0.72

0.67

-0.63 (46)

Essay Overall Tone

-2.79

2.59

-0.01

0.82

0.02

0.88

-0.15 (166)

Essay Response Yes/No

* p < .05

162

t (df)

Table 48
Study 3 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

1. Condition

-0.27*
-0.13

0.20

-0.08

0.18

0.06

(0.85)

5. Just World
Beliefs

0.10

-0.01

-0.01

0.03

(0.65)

6. Modern Racism

0.07

0.14

-0.22

0.34*

-0.09

(0.89)

0.07

-0.04

-0.06

0.01

-0.21

0.19

(0.86)

0.07

0.06

0.52*

-0.09

-0.07

-0.11

-0.02

(0.87)

9. IM Overall Tone -0.01

-0.06

-0.25*

0.08

-0.07

0.09

-0.00

-0.51*

12

(0.91)

4. Racial Identity

11

(0.83)

3. State Anger

10

----

2. Trait Anger

9

7. Confronting
Efficacy
8. IM Confront.
Strength

(0.66)

10. Essay Response
-0.02
0.07
0.41* 0.01
0.06
-0.13
-0.01
0.53* -0.38* --Yes/No
11. Essay Confront.
0.09
0.02
0.32* -0.19
-0.04
-0.17
-0.01
0.25
-0.16* --(0.70)
Strength
12. Essay Overall
0.01
0.11
-0.20* 0.05
0.07
-0.08
0.08
-0.39* 0.49* -0.26* -0.51* (0.68)
Tone
Note: For Condition, 0=Low Racial ID candidate, 1=High Racial ID candidate. Only participants who responded to the comment
have scores for Essay Confrontation Strength, thus a correlation between Essay Response Yes/No and Essay Confrontation Strength
cannot be calculated.
* p < .05
163

Table 49
Study 3 - Correlations of Independent and Dependent Variables by Condition
1
1. Trait Anger

---

2. State Anger

-0.01

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

0.31

-0.00

-0.05

0.23

-0.09

0.28

-0.11

0.15

0.10

0.08

0.05

-0.18

-0.16

-0.29

0.53* -0.20

0.30*

0.49* -0.17

---

3. Racial Identity

0.32*

0.05

---

4. Just World Beliefs

0.10

0.18

-0.17

5. Modern Racism

0.11

-0.25

6. Confronting Efficacy

0.04

0.13

7. IM Confront. Strength

-0.18

8. IM Overall Tone

-0.00

-0.31*

9. Essay Response Yes/No

-0.02

10. Essay Confront. Strength

0.03

11. Essay Overall Tone

0.12

0.35*

0.31* -0.18
-0.01

0.04

-0.08

0.13

-0.00

-0.51

0.20

0.01

---

0.43*

-0.10

0.02

-0.09

-0.02

0.08

-0.11

0.30

-0.03

0.08

-0.04

-0.20

-0.13

-0.21

0.27

-0.19

0.01

0.24

0.34

-0.26*

-0.30* -0.09

0.39*

---

-0.31*

0.12

-0.16

-0.17

0.12

0.04

-0.05

0.10

-0.25

0.56*

0.01

0.13

-0.18

0.12

0.08

0.17

-0.11

-0.13

-0.25* -0.05

0.22

-0.02

0.54* -0.09

---

---

-0.46*

-0.56* ---

0.47*

0.59* -0.47* ---

-0.09

-0.16

-0.08

0.03

---

-0.49*

-0.03

-0.50*

-0.25

0.17

0.58* -0.35* -0.52* ---

Note: Correlations for Strongly Identified Applicant condition appear below the diagonal and correlations for Weakly Identified
Applicant condition appear above the diagonal. Only participants who responded to the comment in their essay have scores for
Essay Confrontation Strength, thus a correlation between Essay Response Yes/No and Confrontation Strength cannot be
calculated.
* p < .05

164

Table 50
Hypothesis 3A – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Condition
IM
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 170)

IM Overall
Tone
(N = 171)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Condition

0.12
(0.12)

-0.01
(0.13)

Δ R2

0.01

0.00

Total R2

0.01

0.00

*p < .05

165

Table 51
Hypothesis 3A – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Condition

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 169)
ß (SE)
Condition

-0.10
(0.36)

OR
0.91

Essay
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 42)

Essay
Overall
Tone
(N = 168)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.20
(0.22)

0.02
(0.13)

Δ R2

---

0.02

0.00

Total R2

---

0.02

0.00

*p < .05

166

Table 52
Hypothesis 3B – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by State Anger
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 73)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 74)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Condition

0.11
(0.20)

0.22
(0.16)

0.11
(0.08)

-0.08
(0.22)

-0.19
(0.20)

-0.09
(0.10)

Trait Anger

0.08
(0.14)

-0.03
(0.12)

-0.02
(0.08)

-0.88
(0.16)

0.03
(0.14)

0.02
(0.10)

0.59*
(0.10)

0.49*
(0.09)

-0.55*
(0.12)

-0.45*
(0.10)

State Anger
Condition x
State Anger

0.03
(0.09)

0.02
(0.10)

Δ R2

0.01

0.32*

0.00

0.01

0.22

0.00

Total R2

0.01

0.33*

0.33*

0.01

0.22

0.23

*p < .05

167

Table 53
Hypothesis 3B – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by State Anger
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 24)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 75)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 74)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Condition

-0.02
(0.26)

0.98

0.19
(0.32)

1.21

0.35
(0.37)

1.41

0.24
(0.17)

0.20
(0.18)

0.24
(0.21)

-0.05
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.11)

Trait Anger

0.14
(0.25)

1.15

-0.08
(0.33)

0.93

0.10
(0.31)

1.11

0.14
(0.18)

0.06
(0.21)

0.02
(0.23)

0.09
(0.11)

0.15
(0.11)

0.14
(0.11)

1.54*
(0.41)

4.66

2.73*
(0.86)

15.28

0.14
(0.18)

0.14
(0.19)

-0.33*
(0.11)

-0.33*
(0.11)

2.07*
(0.87)

7.94

State Anger
Condition x
State Anger

-0.07
(0.17)

-0.04
(0.11)

Δ R2

---

---

---

0.09

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.11*

0.00

Total R2

---

---

---

0.09

0.11

0.12

0.02

0.12*

0.12

*p < .05

168

Figure 5
The Effect of State Anger on Essay Response at Low and High Levels of Applicant Racial Identity

169

Table 54
Hypothesis 3C – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Racial Identification
IM
Confrontation
Strength
(N = 70)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 71)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Condition

0.03
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

-0.02
(0.11)

-0.02
(0.11)

Racial
Identification

-0.07
(0.10)

-0.07
(0.10)

0.07
(0.11)

0.09
(0.11)

Condition X Racial
Identification

0.00
(0.10)

-0.06
(0.11)

Δ R2

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.00

Total R2

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.01

*p < .05

170

Table 55
Hypothesis 3C – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial Identification
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 72)
Step 1

Step 2

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 71)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 1

Step 2

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

Condition

-0.14
(0.26)

0.87

-0.14
(0.26)

0.87

0.22
(0.15)

0.22
(0.15)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.11)

Racial
Identification

0.01
(0.26)

1.01

0.00
(0.27)

1.00

-0.28
(0.21)

-0.33
(0.21)

0.04
(0.11)

0.09
(0.12)

0.01
(0.27)

1.01

Condition X Racial
Identification

0.33
(0.21)

-0.13
(0.12)

Δ R2

---

---

0.17

0.10

0.01

0.02

Total R2

---

---

0.17

0.27

0.01

0.03

*p < .05

171

Table 56
Hypothesis 3D – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Just World Beliefs
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 71)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)
Condition

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.05
(0.10)

0.05
(0.10)

0.05
(0.10)

-0.03
(0.11)

-0.03
(0.11)

-0.03
(0.11)

-0.06
(0.10)

-0.06
(0.10)

-0.06
(0.11)

-0.06
(0.11)

Just World Beliefs
Condition x Just
World Beliefs

-0.08
(0.10)

0.02
(0.11)

Δ R2

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.01

0.00

Total R2

0.00

0.01

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.01

*p < .05

172

Table 57
Hypothesis 3D – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Just World Beliefs
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 24)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 73)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)
Condition

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.10
(0.25)

0.90

-0.11
(0.25)

0.90

-0.12
(0.25)

0.89

0.19
(0.16)

0.21
(0.16)

0.21
(0.17)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.10
(0.11)

-0.10
(0.11)

0.14
(0.26)

1.15

0.13
(0.26)

1.14

-0.14
(0.20)

-0.08
(0.23)

0.07
(0.11)

0.06
(0.11)

0.17
(0.26)

1.12

Just World Beliefs
Condition x Just
World Beliefs

-0.13
(0.23)

0.16
(0.11)

Δ R2

---

---

---

0.06

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.03

Total R2

---

---

---

0.06

0.08

0.10

0.01

0.02

0.04

*p < .05

173

Table 58
Hypothesis 3E – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Modern Racism
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 71)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)
Condition

Step 2
ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

0.05
(0.10)

0.05
(0.10)

0.05
(.10)

-0.16
(0.11)

-0.04
(0.11)

-0.16
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.10)

-0.08
(0.10)

0.08
(0.10)

-0.04
(0.11)

Modern Racism
Condition X
Modern Racism

-0.05
(0.10)

-0.01
(0.11)

Δ R2

0.00

0.01

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.00

Total R2

0.00

0.02

0.02

0.00

0.01

0.01

*p < .05

174

Table 59
Hypothesis 3E – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Modern Racism
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 24)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 73)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)
Condition

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.10
(0.25)

0.90

-0.08
(0.25)

0.92

-0.11
(0.26)

0.90

0.19
(0.16)

0.18
(0.16)

0.18
(0.17)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.08
(0.11)

-0.27
(0.26)

0.77

-0.25
(0.26)

0.78

-0.16
(0.17)

-0.16
(0.17)

-0.07
(0.12)

-0.07
(0.12)

-0.16
(0.26)

0.85

Modern Racism
Condition x
Modern Racism

-0.02
(0.18)

0.05
(0.12)

Δ R2

---

---

---

0.06

0.04

0.00

0.01

0.01

0.00

Total R2

---

---

---

0.06

0.10

0.10

0.01

0.02

0.02

*p < .05

175

Table 60
Hypothesis 3F – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 72)
Step 1
ß (SE)
Condition

Step 2
ß (SE)

0.03
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

-0.02
(0.10)

-0.04
(0.10)

Confronting Efficacy
Condition x
Confronting Efficacy

Step 3

IM Overall Tone
(N = 73)

ß (SE)

Step 1

-0.00
(0.11)

Step 3

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.00
(0.11)

-0.01
(0.11)

-0.00
(0.11)

ß (SE)

Step 2

0.05
(0.11)

0.13
(0.10)

-0.24*
(0.11)

Δ R2

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.07*

Total R2

0.00

0.00

0.03

0.00

0.00

0.07*

*p < .05

176

Figure 6
Effect of Confronting Efficacy on IM Overall Tone at Low and High Levels of Applicant Racial Identity

0.60

IM Overall Tone

0.40
0.20
Low Identity
Condition
High Identity
Condition

0.00
-0.20
-0.40
-0.60
Low Efficacy

High Efficacy

177

Table 61
Hypothesis 3F – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 24)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 74)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 73)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)
Condition

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

-0.08
(0.25)

0.93

-.08
(0.25)

0.93

-0.10
(0.27)

0.91

0.91
(0.16)

0.19
(0.17)

0.19
(0.17)

-0.06
(0.11)

-0.06
(0.11)

-0.07
(0.11)

-0.03
(0.25)

0.98

-0.10
(0.27)

0.91

-0.02
(0.15)

-0.02
(0.16)

0.08
(0.11)

0.11
(0.11)

0.35
(0.27)

1.42

Confronting
Efficacy
Condition x
Confronting
Efficacy

-0.03
(0.16)

-0.14
(0.11)

Δ R2

---

---

0.06

0.00

0.00

0.00

0.01

0.02

Total R2

---

---

0.06

0.06

0.06

0.00

0.01

0.03

*p < .05

178

Table 62
Hypothesis 3G – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 70)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 71)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

0.04
(0.10)

0.04
(0.10)

0.04
(0.10)

-0.01
(0.11)

-0.01
(0.11)

-0.01
(0.11)

Racial Identification

-0.06
(0.10)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.08
(0.11)

0.07
(0.11)

0.12
(0.12)

0.12
(0.12)

Just World Beliefs

-0.07
(0.10)

-0.05
(0.12)

-0.07
(0.12)

-0.05
(0.11)

-0.07
(0.13)

-0.06
(0.13)

Identification x Just World
Beliefs

0.02
(0.09)

0.06
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

0.01
(0.11)

Condition x Identification

0.01
(0.11)

-0.01
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.12)

-0.09
(0.12)

Condition x Just World
Beliefs

-0.12
(0.11)

-0.07
(0.12)

0.07
(0.12)

0.04
(0.13)

Condition x Identification
x Just World Beliefs

0.12
(0.10)

*p < .05

179

-0.08
(0.11)

Table 62 (cont’d)
Δ R2

0.02

0.02

0.02

0.01

0.02

0.01

Total R2

0.02

0.04

0.06

0.01

0.03

0.03

*p < .05

180

Table 63
Hypothesis 3G – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial Identification, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 72)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 71)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

-0.14
(0.26)

0.87

-0.19
(0.26)

0.83

-0.18
(0.26)

0.83

0.23
(0.16)

0.22
(0.17)

0.22
(0.17)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.12)

-0.08
(0.12)

Racial
Identification

0.01
(0.26)

1.00

0.06
(0.30)

1.06

0.08
(0.31)

1.08

-0.28
(0.16)

-0.34
(0.22)

-0.34
(0.24)

0.04
(0.11)

0.15
(0.13)

0.15
(0.13)

Just World Beliefs

0.08
(0.27)

1.01

0.00
(0.30)

1.00

-0.04
(0.32)

0.84

-0.07
(0.22)

0.01
(0.25)

0.01
(0.30)

0.07
(0.12)

0.01
(0.13)

0.01
(0.11)

Identification x Just
World Beliefs

-0.19
(0.27)

0.83

-0.17
(0.34)

0.84

-0.04
(0.49)

-0.05
(0.58)

0.00
(0.11)

-0.01
(0.11)

Condition x
Identification

0.01
(0.30)

1.01

-0.05
(0.31)

0.96

0.32
(0.23)

0.31
(0.24)

-0.17
(0.13)

-0.16
(0.13)

Condition x Just
World Beliefs
Condition x
Identification x Just
World Beliefs
*p < .05

0.18
(0.30)

1.20

0.28
(0.33)

1.41

-0.11
(0.24)

-0.11
(0.30)

0.22
(0.13)

0.20
(0.13)

0.34
(0.34)

1.41

181

0.02
(0.58)

-0.05
(0.11)

Table 63 (cont’d)
Δ R2

---

---

---

0.18

0.10

0.00

0.02

0.06

0.00

Total R2

---

---

---

0.18

0.28

0.28

0.02

0.08

0.08

*p < .05

182

Table 64
Hypothesis 3H – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 70)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 71)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

0.04
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

0.07
(0.11)

-0.02
(0.11)

-0.02
(0.11)

-0.03
(0.12)

Racial
Identification

-0.04
(0.11)

-0.05
(0.12)

-0.04
(0.12)

0.05
(0.12)

0.07
(0.13)

0.07
(0.13)

Modern Racism

-0.07
(0.11)

-0.06
(0.11)

-0.07
(0.11)

0.06
(0.11)

0.05
(0.12)

0.05
(0.12)

Identification x
Racism

0.04
(0.12)

0.04
(0.12)

-0.00
(0.13)

-0.01
(0.13)

Condition x
Identification

0.02
(0.12)

0.03
(0.12)

-0.06
(0.13)

-0.06
(0.13)

Condition x Racism

-0.06
(0.11)

-0.06
(0.11)

0.02
(0.12)

0.02
(0.12)

Condition x
Identification x
Racism
*p < .05

-0.08
(0.12)

183

0.02
(0.13)

Table 64 (cont’d)
Δ R2

0.02

0.01

0.01

0.01

0.00

0.00

Total R2

0.02

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.02

0.02

*p < .05

184

Table 65
Hypothesis 3H – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Racial Identification, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 23)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 72)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 71)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

-0.11
(0.26)

0.89

-0.14
(0.27)

0.87

-0.10
(0.28)

0.91

0.22
(0.16)

0.19
(0.16)

0.08
(0.16)

-0.08
(0.11)

-0.07
(0.11)

-0.13
(0.13)

Racial
Identification

0.15
(0.29)

1.16

0.15
(0.31)

1.16

0.15
(0.31)

1.17

-0.25
(0.23)

-0.26
(0.23)

-0.41
(0.23)

0.08
(0.12)

0.13
(0.13)

0.12
(0.13)

Modern Racism

-0.34
(0.29)

0.71

-0.34
(0.30)

0.71

-0.36
(0.33)

0.70

-0.06
(0.18)

-0.04
(0.18)

-0.02
(0.17)

-0.10
(0.13)

-0.12
(0.13)

-0.10
(0.13)

Identification x
Racism

-0.34
(0.34)

0.71

-0.34
(0.33)

0.72

-0.29
(0.23)

-0.27
(0.22)

0.09
(0.13)

0.08
(0.13)

Condition x
Identification

0.11
(0.31)

1.11

0.11
(0.31)

1.12

0.49
(0.25)

0.41
(0.24)

-0.19
(0.13)

-0.21
(0.13)

Condition x Racism

-0.26
(0.30)

0.77

-0.27
(0.31)

0.77

-0.11
(0.18)

-0.13
(0.17)

0.13
(0.13)

0.14
(0.13)

-0.14
(0.34)

0.53

Condition x
Identification x
Racism
*p < .05

185

0.39
(0.22)

0.16
(0.13)

Table 65 (cont’d)
Δ R2

---

---

---

0.18

0.17

0.11

0.02

0.04

0.02

Total R2

---

---

---

0.18

0.35

0.46

0.02

0.06

0.08

*p < .05

186

Table 66
Hypothesis 3I – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 71)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

0.05
(0.10)

0.07
(0.10)

0.03
(0.10)

-0.03
(0.11)

-0.04
(0.11)

0.03
(0.10)

Confronting Efficacy

-0.02
(0.10)

-0.01
(0.10)

-0.08
(0.10)

-0.03
(0.11)

0.04
(0.11)

0.03
(0.11)

Just World Beliefs

-0.07
(0.10)

-0.07
(0.10)

-0.09
(0.10)

-0.07
(0.11)

-0.08
(0.11)

-0.06
(0.11)

Efficacy x
Just World Beliefs

0.13
(0.12)

0.22
(0.13)

-0.08
(0.13)

-0.21
(0.14)

Condition x Efficacy

0.10
(0.10)

0.14
(0.10)

-0.23*
(0.11)

-0.30*
(0.11)

Condition x
Just World Beliefs

-0.05
(0.10)

-0.02
(0.10)

-0.04
(0.11)

-0.08
(0.11)

Condition x Efficacy x
Just World Beliefs

-0.23
(0.13)

*p < .05

187

0.34*
(0.14)

Table 66 (cont’d)
Δ R2

0.01

0.04

0.04

0.01

0.08

0.08*

Total R2

0.01

0.06

0.10

0.01

0.08

0.17*

*p < .05

188

Figure 7
The Effects of Just World Beliefs and Confronting Efficacy on IM Overall Tone at Low and High Levels of Applicant Racial Identity
0.80
0.60
Low Efficacy,
High Just World
Beliefs (1)

0.40

IM Overall Tone

0.20
Low Efficacy, Low
Just World Beliefs
(2)

0.00
-0.20

High Efficacy,
High Just World
Beliefs (3)

-0.40
-0.60

High Efficacy,
Low Just World
Beliefs (4)

-0.80
-1.00
-1.20
Low Identity Condition

High Identity Condition

189

Table 67
Hypothesis 3I – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Just World Beliefs, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 24)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 73)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

-0.11
(0.25)

0.90

-0.05
(0.27)

0.95

-0.04
(0.31)

0.96

0.21
(0.17)

-0.03
(0.19)

-0.10
(0.19)

-0.10
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.11)

-0.05
(0.11)

Confronting
Efficacy

-0.01
(0.26)

1.00

-0.22
(0.30)

0.80

-0.85
(0.56)

0.43

-0.02
(0.15)

0.26
(0.19)

0.36
(0.20)

0.09
(0.11)

0.09
(0.12)

0.09
(0.12)

Just World Beliefs

0.14
(0.27)

1.15

0.10
(0.30)

1.10

0.17
(0.42)

1.18

-0.14
(0.20)

-0.04
(0.23)

-0.33
(0.30)

0.09
(0.12)

0.06
(0.12)

0.08
(0.12)

Efficacy x Just
World Beliefs

0.66
(0.38)

1.94

2.31*
(1.11)

10.07

-0.68*
(0.27)

-0.91*
(0.31)

0.14
(0.14)

0.05
(0.15)

Condition x
Efficacy

0.38
(0.28)

1.46

1.16*
(0.57)

3.19

-0.03
(0.15)

-0.22
(0.20)

-0.10
(0.12)

-0.14
(0.12)

0.25
(0.29)

1.29

0.24
(0.42)

1.27

0.33
(0.29)

0.46
(0.30)

0.15
(0.12)

0.13
(0.12)

-2.15
(1.11)

0.12

Condition x Just
World Beliefs
Condition x
Efficacy x Just
World Beliefs
*p < .05

190

0.44
(0.31)

0.23
(0.15)

Table 67 (cont’d)
Δ R2

---

---

---

0.08

0.27

0.07

0.02

0.05

0.03

Total R2

---

---

---

0.08

0.35

0.42

0.02

0.08

0.11

*p < .05

191

Figure 8
The Effect of Just World Beliefs on Essay Confrontation Strength at Low and High Levels of Confronting Efficacy
2.0

Essay Confrontation Strength

1.5

1.0

0.5

Low Just World Beliefs
High Just World Beliefs

0.0

-0.5

-1.0
Low Confronting Efficacy High Confronting Efficacy

192

Table 68
Hypothesis 3J – Confronting Behavior during Instant Message Chat Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
IM Confrontation Strength
(N = 71)

IM Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

0.05
(0.10)

0.05
(0.10)

0.06
(0.10)

-0.04
(0.11)

-0.02
(0.11)

0.01
(0.11)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.01
(0.10)

-0.04
(0.10)

-0.03
(0.11)

-0.03
(0.11)

0.05
(0.11)

0.07
(0.11)

Modern Racism

-0.09
(0.10)

-0.05
(0.10)

-0.05
(0.10)

0.08
(0.11)

0.03
(0.11)

0.02
(0.11)

Efficacy x Racism

-0.04
(0.10)

-0.02
(0.11)

0.12
(0.11)

0.14
(0.12)

Condition x
Efficacy

0.14
(0.10)

0.13
(0.11)

-0.26*
(0.11)

-0.27*
(0.11)

Condition x Racism

-0.08
(0.10)

-0.08
(0.10)

0.05
(0.11)

0.06
(0.11)

Condition x
Efficacy x Racism

-0.06
(0.11)

*p < .05

193

-0.09
(0.12)

Table 68 (cont’d)
Δ R2

0.02

0.03

0.01

0.01

0.08

0.01

Total R2

0.02

0.05

0.05

0.01

0.09

0.10

*p < .05

194

Table 69
Hypothesis 3J – Confronting Behavior during Essay Exchange Predicted by Confronting Efficacy, Modern Racism, and their
Interaction
Essay Confrontation
Strength
(N = 24)

Essay Response Yes/No
(N = 73)
Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Essay Overall Tone
(N = 72)

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

Step 1

Step 2

Step 3

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

OR

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

ß (SE)

ß (SE)

SE

Condition

-0.08
(0.25)

0.92

-0.13
(0.27)

0.88

-0.13
(0.27)

0.88

0.19
(0.17)

0.13
(0.18)

0.10
(0.18)

-0.10
(0.11)

-0.07
(0.11)

-0.09
(0.12)

Confronting
Efficacy

0.02
(0.26)

1.02

-0.15
(0.29)

0.86

-0.14
(0.30)

0.87

-0.01
(0.15)

-0.02
(0.16)

-0.02
(0.16)

0.08
(0.11)

0.14
(0.12)

0.12
(0.12)

Modern Racism

-0.27
(0.26)

0.76

-0.17
(0.28)

0.85

-0.17
(0.28)

0.85

-0.16
(0.18)

-0.15
(0.18)

-0.22
(0.19)

-0.08
(0.12)

-0.13
(0.12)

-0.13
(0.12)

Efficacy x Racism

-0.27
(0.31)

0.77

-0.26
(0.32)

0.77

-0.30
(0.24)

-0.33
(0.24)

0.11
(0.12)

0.08
(0.12)

Condition x
Efficacy

0.44
(0.29)

1.55

0.43
(0.30)

1.54

-0.05
(0.16)

-0.04
(0.16)

-0.18
(0.12)

-0.16
(0.12)

Condition x Racism

-0.23
(0.28)

0.79

-0.23
(0.28)

0.79

0.05
(0.19)

0.04
(0.19)

0.10
(0.12)

0.09
(0.12)

-0.03
(0.32)

0.97

Condition x
Efficacy x Racism
*p < .05

195

0.30
(0.24)

0.11
(0.13)

Table 69 (cont’d)
Δ R2

---

---

---

0.10

0.08

0.07

0.02

0.04

0.01

Total R2

---

---

---

0.10

0.18

0.25

0.02

0.07

0.08

*p < .05

196

Table 70
Summary of Statistically Significant Results
Study 1 – Racist Hiring Decision
Just
World
Beliefs

Modern
Racism

Efficacy

Interactions

Dependent Variable

Race

Anger

Racial
Identity

IM Confront Strength

---

X

X

---

---

---

Race x ID

IM Overall Tone

---

X

---

X

---

---

---

Essay Response Yes/No

---

X

X

---

---

---

---

Essay Confront Strength

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

Essay Overall Tone

---

X

---

---

---

X

Efficacy x Just
World Beliefs

197

Table 70 (cont’d)
Study 2 – Sexist Hiring Decision
Just
World
Beliefs

Modern
Sexism

Efficacy

Dependent Variable

Sex

Anger

Gender
Identity

IM Confront Strength

---

X

---

---

X

---

---

IM Overall Tone

---

---

X

---

---

---

---

Essay Response Yes/No

---

X

---

---

X

---

Sex x ID

Essay Confront Strength

---

X

---

---

---

---

Efficacy x Sexism

Essay Overall Tone

---

---

---

---

---

---

---

198

Table 70 (cont’d)
Study 3 – Racist Hiring Decision of Applicant with Low or High Racial Identity
Dependent Variable

Condition

Anger

Racial
Identity

IM Confront Strength

---

X

---

Just
World
Beliefs

Modern
Racism

Efficacy

---

---

---

--Condition x
Efficacy

IM Overall Tone

---

X

---

---

---

---

Essay Response Yes/No

---

X

---

---

---

---

Condition x Anger

Essay Confront Strength

---

---

---

---

---

---

Just World Beliefs
x Efficacy

Essay Overall Tone

---

X

---

---

---

---

199

Condition x
Efficacy x Just
World Beliefs

REFERENCES

200

REFERENCES

Adams, D. (1986). The role of anger in the consciousness development of peace activists: Where
physiology and history interact. International Journal of Psychophysiology, 4, 157-164.
Adams, E.M., Waldo, M., Steiner, R., Mayfield, R., Ackerlind, S.J., & Castellanos, L.P. (2003).
Creating peace by confronting prejudice: Examining the effects of a multicultural
communication skills group intervention. International Journal for the Advancement of
Counseling, 25, 281-291.
Adams-Roy, J. & Barling, J. (1998). Predicting the decision to confront or report sexual
harassment. Journal of Organizational Behavior, 19, 329-336.
Aiken, L.S. & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Ajzen, I. & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude-behavior relations: A theoretical analysis and review of
empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, 84, 888-918.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality.’ In L, Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology, 30, 47-92.
Arriola, K.R.J. & Cole, E.R. (2001). Framing the Affirmative-Action debate: Attitudes toward
out-group members and White identity. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 24622483.
Awad, G.H., Cokley, K., & Ravitch, J. (2005). Attitudes toward Affirmative Action: A
comparison of color-blind versus modern racist attitudes. Journal of Applied Social
Psychology, 35, 1384-1399.
Bandura, A. (1977). Self-efficacy: Toward a unifying theory of behavioral change.
Psychological Review, 84, 191-215.
Branscombe, N.R., Schmitt, M.T., & Harvey, R.D. (1999). Perceiving pervasive discrimination
among African Americans: Implications for group identification and well-being. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 135-149.
Brief, A. P., Dietz, J., Cohen, R. R., Pugh, S. D., & Vaslow, J. B. (2000). Just doing business:
Modern racism and obedience to authority as explanations for employment
discrimination. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 81, 72–97.
Cameron, J.E. (2001). Social identity, modern sexism, and perceptions of personal and group
discrimination by women and men. Sex Roles, 45, 743-766.
201

Channouf, A., Py, J., & Somat, A. (1999). Cognitive processing of causal explanations: A
sociocognitive perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 673-690.
Cortina, L.M., Magley, V.J., Williams, J.H., & Langhout, R.D. (2001). Incivility in the
workplace: Incidence and impact. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 6, 64-80.
Crosby, F. (1984). The denial of personal discrimination. American Behavioral Scientist, 27,
371-386.
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.
Czopp, A. M., Monteith, M. J., Mark, A.Y. (2006). Standing up for change: Reducing bias
through interpersonal confrontation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
784-803.
Dalbert, C. & Yamauchi, L.A. (1994). Belief in a just world and attitudes toward immigrants and
foreign workers: A cultural comparison between Hawaii and Germany. Journal of
Applied Social Psychology, 24, 1612-1626.
Deaux, K.(1996). Social identification. In E.T. Higgins & Kruglanski, A.W. (Eds.), Social
psychology: Handbook of basic principles (pp. 777-798). New York: Guilford Press.
Delgado, R. & Stefancic, J. (1997). Critical White studies: Looking behind the mirror. Chicago:
University of Chicago Press.
Dodd, E.H., Giuliano, T.A., Boutell, J.M., & Moran, B.E. (2002). Respected or rejected:
Perceptions of women who confront sexist remarks. Sex Roles, 45, 567-577.
Eichstedt, J.L. (2001). Problematic White identities and a search for racial justice. Sociological
Forum, 16, 445-470.
Eliasoph, N. (1999). “Everyday racism” in a culture of political avoidance: Civil society, speech,
and taboo. Social Problems, 46, 479-502.
Feagin, J.R. (1991). The continuing significance of race: Antiblack discrimination in public
places. American Sociological Review, 56, 101-116.
Feldman, L.B. & Swim, J.K. (1998). Appraisals of prejudice and discrimination. In J.K. Swim &
C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp.11-36). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press.
Festinger, L. (1954). A theory of social comparison processes. Human Relations, 7, 117-140.

202

Fitzgerald, L.F., Swan, S., & Fischer, K. (1995). Why didn’t she just report him? The
psychological and legal implications of women’s responses to sexual harassment. Journal
of Social Issues, 51, 117-138.
Foster, M.D. & Matheson, K. (1995). Double relative deprivation: Combining the personal and
political. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1167-1177.
Garcia, D. M., Reser, A. H., Amo, R. B., Redersdorff, S., & Branscombe, N. R. (2005).
Perceivers' responses to in-group and out-group members who blame a negative outcome
on discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 769-780.
Gervais, S.J., Hillard, A.L., & Vescio, T.K. (2010). Confronting sexism: The role of relationship
orientation and gender. Sex Roles, 63, 463-474.
Gigerenzer, G., Todd, P. M., & The ABC Research Group (1999). Simple heuristics that make
us smart. New York: Oxford University Press.
Giroux, H.A. (1997). Rewriting the discourse of racial identity: Towards a pedagogy and politics
of Whiteness. Harvard Educational Review, 67, 285-320.
Glomb, T.M., Richman, W.L., Hulin, C.L., Drasgow, F., Schneider, K.T., & Fitzgerald, L.F.
(1997). Ambient sexual harassment: An integrated model of antecedents and
consequences. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 71, 309-328.
Gilligan, C. (1982). In a different voice: Psychological theory and women’s development.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
Goldberg, C.B. (2007). The impact of training and conflict avoidance on responses to sexual
harassment. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 31, 62-72.
Good, J., Moss-Racusin, Corinne, & Sanchez, D. (2012). When do we confront? Perceptions of
costs and benefits predict confronting discrimination on behalf of self and others.
Psychology of Women Quarterly, 36, 210-226.
Guyll, M., Matthews, K.A., & Bromberger, J.T. (2001). Discrimination and unfair treatment:
Relationship to cardiovascular reactivity among African American and European
American women. Health Psychology, 20, 315-325.
Haslett, B.B. & Lipman, S. (1997). Micro inequities: Up close and personal. In N.V. Benokraitis
(Ed.), Subtle sexism: Current practice and prospects for change (pp.34-53). Thousand
Oaks, CA: Sage Publications.
Hercus, C. (1999). Identity, emotion, and feminist collection action. Gender and Society, 13, 3455.

203

Hyers, L.L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring women’s assertive responses to
anti-Black racism, anti-Semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56, 1-12.
Iyer, A., Leach, C.W., & Crosby, F.J. (2003). White guilt and racial compensation: The benefits
and limits of self-focus. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 117-129.
Jost, J.T., & Hunyady, O. (2005). Antecedents and consequences of system-justifying ideologies.
Current Directions in Psychological Science, 14, 260-265.
Kaiser, C.R., Hagiwara, N., Malahy, L.W., & Wilkins, C.L. (2009). Group identification
moderates attitudes toward ingroup members who confront discrimination. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 770-777.
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.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2003). Derogating the victim: The interpersonal consequences of
blaming events on discrimination. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 227237.
Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting abstract
sexism. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 168-178.
Kaiser, C.R. & Pratt-Hyatt, J.S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their
prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Social and Personality
Psychology, 96, 432-445.
Kaysen, D. & Stake, J.E. (2001). From thought to deed: Understanding abortion activism.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 31, 2378-2400.
Kessler, R.C., Mickelson, K.D., & Williams, D.R. (1999). The prevalence, distribution, and
mental health correlates of perceived discrimination in the United States. Journal of
Health and Social Behavior, 40, 208-230.
Knowles, E.D. & Peng, K. (2005). White selves: Conceptualizing and measuring a dominant
group-identity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 223-241.
Kowalski, R.M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences.
Psychological Bulletin, 119, 179-196.
Latané, B. & Darley, J.M. (1970). The unresponsive bystander: Why doesn’t he help?
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hall.
Lerner, M.J. (1980). The belief in a just world: A fundamental delusion. New York: Plenum
Press.

204

Lerner, M.J. & Miller, D.T. (1978). Just world research and the attribution process: Looking
back and ahead. Psychological Bulletin, 85, 1030-1051.
Leung, T. & Kim, M.S. (2007). Eight conflict handling styles: Validation of model and
instrument. Journal of Asian Pacific Communication, 17, 173-198.
Lowery, B.S., Unzueta, M.M., Knowles, E.D., & Goff, P.A. (2006). Concern for the in-group
and opposition to Affirmative Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90,
961-974.
Major, B., Quinton, W.J., & McCoy, S.K. (2002). Antecedents and consequences of attributions
to discrimination: Theoretical and empirical advances. In M.P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in
experimental social psychology (pp. 251-330). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Major, B., Quinton, W.J., & Schmader, T. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem:
Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 39, 220-231.
Maass, A., Cadinu, M., Guarnieri, G., & Grasselli, A. (2003). Sexual harassment under social
identity threat: The computer harassment paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 85, 853-870.
McConahay, J.B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and the Modern Racism Scale. In J.F.
Dovidio & S.L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91-125). San
Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Miller, C.W. & Roloff, M.E. (2005). Gender and willingness to confront hurtful messages from
romantic partners. Communication Quarterly, 53, 323-337.
Miner-Rubino, K. & Cortina, L.M. (2007). Beyond targets: Consequences of vicarious exposure
to misogyny at work. Journal of Applied Psychology, 92, 1254-1269.
Miner-Rubino, K. & Cortina, L.M. (2004). Working in a context of hostility toward women:
Implications for employees’ well-being. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 9,
107-122.
Nail, P.R., Harton, H.C., & Decker, B.P. (2003). Political orientation and modern versus aversive
racism: Tests of Dovidio and Gaertner’s (1998) Integrated Model. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 84, 754-770.
Oldmeadow, J. & Fiske, S.T. (2007). System-justifying ideologies moderate status = competence
stereotypes: Roles for belief in a just world and social dominance orientation. European
Journal of Social Psychology, 37, 1135-1148.

205

Operario, D. & Fiske, S.T. (2001). Ethnic identity moderates perceptions of prejudice:
Judgments of personal versus group discrimination and subtle versus blatant bias.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 550-561.
Parks, J.B. & Robertson, M.A. (2004). Attitudes toward women mediate the gender effect on
attitudes toward sexist language. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 233-239.
Perry, P. (2001). White means never having to saying you’re ethnic: White youth and the
construction of “cultureless” identities. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 30, 5691.
Petty, P. (2007). White universal identity as a “sense of group position.” Symbolic Interaction,
30, 375-393.
Petty, R. E., Fleming, M. A., Priester, J. R., & Feinstein, A. H. (2001). Individual versus group
interest violation: Surprise as a determinant of argument scrutiny and persuasion. Social
Cognition, 19, 418-442.
Pope-Davis, D.B. & Ottavi, T.M. (1992). The influence of White racial identity attitudes on
racism among faculty members: A preliminary examination. Journal of College Student
Development, 33, 389-394.
Pope-Davis, D.B. & Ottavi, T.M. (1994). The relationship between racism and racial identity
among White Americans: A replication and extension. Journal of Counseling &
Development, 72, 293-297.
Pratt-Hyatt, J.S. (2007). The experiences of target and non-target confronters of prejudice.
Unpublished master’s thesis. Michigan State University, East Lansing, Michigan.
Prelow, H.M., Mosher, C.E., & Bowman, M.A. (2006). Perceived racial discrimination, social
support, and psychological adjustment among African American college students.
Journal of Black Psychology, 32, 442-454.
Rattan, A. & Dweck, C.S. (2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the
motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21, 952-959.
Romer, N. (1990). Is political activism still a ‘masculine’ endeavor? Gender comparisons among
high school political activists. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 14, 229-243.
Schmitt, M.T. & Branscombe, N.R. (2001). The good, the bad, and the manly: Threats to one’s
prototypicality and evaluations of fellow in-group members. Journal of Experimental
Social Psychology, 37, 510-517.
Sechrist, G. (2010). Making attributions to and plans to confront gender discrimination: The role
of optimism. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 40, 1678-1707.

206

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997).
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of reliability
and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 1-11.
Sellers, R. M., & Shelton, J. N. (2003). The role of racial identity in perceived racial
discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 1079-1092.
Shelton, J.N. & Sellers, R.M. (2000). Situational stability and variability in African American
racial identity. Journal of Black Psychology, 26, 27-50.
Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory
effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215-223.
Sherkat, D.E. & Blocker, T.J. (1994). The political development of Sixties’ activists: Identifying
the influence of class, gender, and socialization on protest participation. Social Forces,
72, 821-842.
Sidanius, J. & Pratto, F. (2001). Social Dominance: An Intergroup Theory of Social Hierarchy
and Oppression. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.
Sidanius, J., Van Laar, C., Levin, S., & Sinclair, S. (2004). Ethnic enclaves and the dynamics of
social identity on the college campus: The good, the bad and the ugly. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 96-110.
Sillars, A.L. (1980). Attributions and communication in roommate conflicts. Communication
Monographs, 47, 180-200.
Sillars, A.L., Coletti, S.F., Parry, D., & Rogers, M.A. (1982). Coding verbal conflict tactics:
Nonverbal and perceptual correlates of the “avoidance-distributive-integtrative”
distinction. Human Communication Research, 9, 83-95.
Stake, J.E. (2007). Predictors of change in feminist activism through women’s and gender
studies. Sex Roles, 57, 43-54.
Stewart, A.J., Settles, I.H., & Winter, N.J.G. (1998). Women and the social movements of the
1960s: Activists, engaged observers, and nonparticipants. Political Psychology, 19, 6394.
Stone, J., Whitehead, J., Schmader, T. & Focella, E. (2011). Thanks for asking: Self-affirming
questions reduce backlash when stigmatized targets confront prejudice. Journal of
Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 589-598.
Swim, J.K., Aikin, K.J., Hall, W.S., & Hunter, B.A. (1995). Sexism and racism: Old-fashioned
and modern prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 199-214.

207

Swim, J.K., Cohen, L.L., & Hyers, L.L. (1998). Experiencing everyday prejudice and
discrimination. In J.K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.), Prejudice: The target’s perspective
(pp.37-60). New York: Academic.
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, 6888.
Swim, J.K. & Thomas, M.A. (2006). Responding to everyday discrimination: A synthesis of
research on goal-directed, self-regulatory coping behaviors. In S. Levin, & C. van Laar
(Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp.105-126).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Publishers.
Tisak, M.S. & Tisak, J. (1996). Expectations and judgments regarding bystanders’ and victims’
responses to peer aggression among early adolescents. Journal of Adolescence, 19, 383392.
Tougas, F., Brown, R., Beaton, A.M., & Joly, S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est
pareil. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842-849.
Watson, D. & Clark, L.A. (1984). Negative affectivity: The disposition to experience aversive
emotional states. Psychological Bulletin, 96, 465-490.
Watson, D., Clark, L. A., & Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief measures
of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.
Wellman, J.A., Czopp A.M., & Geers, A.L. (2009). The egalitarian optimist and the
confrontation of prejudice. The Journal of Positive Psychology, 4, 389-395.
Werner, P.D. (1978). Personality and attitude-activism correspondence. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 36, 1375-1390.
White, C.L. & Burke, P.J. (1987). Ethnic role identity among Black and White college students:
An interactionist approach. Sociological Perspectives, 30, 310-331.
Winslow, M. P. (2004). Reactions to the imputation of prejudice. Basic and Applied Social
Psychology, 26, 289-297.
Wong, C. & Cho, G.E. (2005). Two-headed coins or Kandinskys: White racial identification.
Political Psychology, 26, 699-720.
Woodruff, S.L. & Cashman, J.F. (1993). Task, domain, and general efficacy: A reexamination of
the self-efficacy scale. Psychological Reports, 72, 423-432.

208

Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of
Social Issues, 57, 15-30.
Ziegert. J.C. & Hanges, P.J. (2005). Employment discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes,
motivation, and a climate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Psychology, 90, 553-562.

209