As remote work remains a lasting feature of the modern workplace, it is critical to understand how this context influences employee responses to racial microaggressions. This study investigates whether the work environment (in-person versus virtual) shapes individuals’ likelihood of confronting microaggressions, perceived responsibility to act, and expressions of allyship. A total of 295 employed adults were randomly assigned to view video-based workplace scenarios depicting subtle racial microaggressions in either an in-person or virtual setting. Participants were assessed on their intentions to engage in various allyship behaviors and rated their sense of personal responsibility to confront. Results provided partial support for the hypotheses. Participants in in-person contexts reported significantly higher overall allyship intentions and greater personal responsibility to confront compared to those in virtual settings, but this effect was observed only in one of two scenarios. Contrary to predictions, participants did not significantly prefer private over public support, and context did not moderate this preference. Exploratory analyses revealed Black participants and women reported higher levels of perceived responsibility to confront. Mediation analyses indicated that perceived similarity to the target explained racial differences in perceived responsibility, which in turn predicted stronger allyship intentions. The findings extend the Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) model by showing how virtual contexts may disrupt key steps in the decision to confront, including harm recognition and urgency. They also highlight identity-based disparities in who feels obligated to act. Implications for diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) efforts are discussed.
Read
