Anja Katrin Munder
Standing Up for Whom? A Social Identity Model for Targets’ Confrontation of a Discriminatory Incident
Dissertation
Psychologie
A Social Identity Model for Targets’ Confrontation of a Discriminatory Incident
Dissertation
zur Erlangung des Doktorgrades der Naturwissenschaften
(Dr. rer. nat.) im Fach Psychologie
der
Fakultät für Psychologie der FernUniversität in Hagen
vorgelegt
von
Anja Katrin Munder, M.Sc.
aus Ulm
Hagen – 31. August 2020
Erstgutachter und Betreuer: Prof. Dr. Oliver Christ (FernUniversität in Hagen) Zweitgutachterin: Prof. Dr. Sabine Sczesny (Universität Bern)
Tag der mündlichen Prüfung: 25. November 2020
i
Zum Ende dieses mehrjährigen Projekts möchte ich mich bei mehreren Personen für die unverzichtbare fachliche und persönliche Unterstützung bedanken.
Mein größter Dank gilt natürlich Oliver Christ für die engagierte Betreuung der Arbeit, insbesondere für seine umfassende Offenheit, kontinuierliche Geduld, großzügige Unterstützung, konstruktive Forderung und vielfältige Förderung. Vielen vielen Dank!
Vielen Dank an Sabine Sczesny für die freundliche Übernahme des Zweitgutachtens.
Ganz herzlichen Dank an Julia Becker für die inspirierende Zusammenarbeit, besonders auch für das unkomplizierte Entgegenkommen und den motivierenden Enthusiasmus.
I want to thank Robyn Mallett for welcoming me to Chicago and being so generous with her knowledge, time, resources, and other forms of support.
Danke an die auf verschiedenste Weise unterstützenden Kolleg:innen und „akademischen“
Freund:innen; im Lehrgebiet, an der FernUni und darüber hinaus, ganz besonders Sybille, Sarina, Mathias, Lena und Christoph.
Many thanks to the fantastic people at LUC and the committed research assistants at the BROAD lab for their indispensable help with data collection and coding, especially Alex.
DANKE an meine wundervollen Freund:innen nah und fern sowie meine Familie—allen voran meine lieben Eltern. <3
Zuletzt meinen großen Dank an alle Versuchspersonen für Ihre bereitwillige Studienteilnahme.
ii
List of Tables ... iv
List of Figures ... iv
Summary ... v
Deutsche Zusammenfassung ... viii
Targets’ Confrontation of an Interpersonal Discriminatory Incident ... 1
Previous Conceptualizations of Confrontation ... 3
Individual and Group Disadvantage as Essential Elements of Discrimination ... 5
The Social Identity Model of Targets’ Confrontation of a Discriminatory Incident ... 7
Coping with the Individual Disadvantage ... 10
Coping with the Group Disadvantage ... 10
Coping with the group disadvantage as a form of collective action ... 11
Coping with the group disadvantage as a form of self-group distancing ... 12
Manuscript Summaries ... 14
Summary Manuscript #1 ... 15
Summary Manuscript #2 ... 19
Summary Manuscript #3 ... 22
General Discussion ... 26
Confrontation as Individual Coping ... 28
Integration results and implications for the model ... 28
Contributions to the literature and directions for future research ... 28
Confrontation as Collective Action ... 30
Integration results and implications for the model ... 30
Contributions to the literature and directions for future research ... 31
Distancing Confrontation ... 31
Integration results and implications for the model ... 31
Contributions to the literature and directions for future research ... 32
iii
Preliminary Results on Confrontation Likelihood ... 37
Limitations ... 38
Methodological limitations ... 38
Conceptual limitations within Social Identity-approach ... 40
Limitations to the Social Identity-approach ... 41
Overall Conclusion ... 42
References ... 43
Erklärung über den Umfang des eigenen Beitrags ... 59
Erklärung der Autorin ... 60
Appendix ... 61
Manuscript #1: ... 62
Manuscript #2: ... 122
Manuscript #3: ... 159
iv
Tabelle 1. Umfang der Beiträge der Autor_innen nach Beitragsbereichen in Prozent
(Manuskript #1) ... 59 Tabelle 2. Umfang der Beiträge der Autor_innen nach Beitragsbereichen in Prozent
(Manuskript #2) ... 59 Tabelle 3. Umfang der Beiträge der Autor_innen nach Beitragsbereichen in Prozent
(Manuskript #3) ... 59 (not including tables in manuscripts)
List of Figures
Figure 1. Visualization of the model of targets’ differently motivated confrontation of an interpersonal discriminatory event. ... 9 Figure 2. Visualization of the revised model of targets’ differently motivated confrontation of an interpersonal discriminatory event. ... 27 (not including figures in manuscripts)
v
The present thesis examines targets‘ verbal opposition of an interpersonal discriminatory incident (confrontation). Previous research has conceptualized confrontation as an individually- motivated coping behavior. This approach assumes that the target only perceives individual disadvantage in a discriminatory incident and thus aims to improve only their personal situation through confrontation. Recent approaches have discussed that discrimination entails two outcomes: Not only is the target suffer an individual disadvantage; at the same time, the respective social group as a whole is being devalued. Therefore, the target is also affected by this group disadvantage and should be additionally motivated to cope with this component of discrimination.
In this dissertation, I present a new model based on the Social Identity Approach that describes confrontation as the manifestation of distinct motivations: 1) Individual coping with the individual disadvantage, 2) Coping with the group disadvantage as a form of collective action, 3) Coping with the group disadvantage as a form of self-group distancing. Five correlational and four experimental studies tested this model and are presented in three manuscripts (NsManuscript #1 = 401/330/221/207/288; NsManuscript #2 = 241/284; NsManuscript #3 = 260/264). All studies follow open science-principles: power analyses determined sample sizes a priori, studies are preregistered together with transparent descriptions and justifications of deviations from the preregistrations (where necessary). Materials, data, analysis scripts, and outputs are provided publicly on appropriate platforms.
Five online scenario studies presented in Manuscript #1 develop the Confrontation Goals-Scale as an operationalization of these different processes. Results across different samples, contexts, social groups, and language versions indicate that individual-benefitting, group-benefitting, and distancing confrontation goals are distinct, though correlated.
Furthermore, correlations with other constructs (group identification, disidentification, further collective action intentions) suggest that the pursuits of these goals represent distinct
vi
benefitting goals indicate that these represent indeed individual coping and collective action, respectively. However, results regarding the pursuit of distancing goals suggest that this represents a distinct process, but this process is not (entirely) a form of self-group distancing.
Alternative interpretations are discussed.
Two online scenario experiments in Manuscript #2 examine in two contexts whether individual disadvantage motivates specifically individual coping-processes in confrontation, while group disadvantage motivates specifically collective action-processes in confrontation.
Extending results from Manuscript #1, a higher degree of perceived individual harm specifically increased the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals. In contrast, a lower level of ambiguity of the perpetrator’s bias against the group specifically increased the pursuit of group- benefitting goals. Results from these experiments also suggest that the pursuit of distancing goals does not represent self-group distancing as an immediate reaction to the group disadvantage. The discussion of alternative interpretations is continued.
Manuscript #3 focuses on the distinction between individual coping- and collective action-process in confrontation. We examined whether the differentiation of these processes also has a meaningful effect on predicting actual confrontational behavior. Two experiments with confederates (Experiment 1: lab; Experiment 2: online) examined whether confrontation- inhibiting factors at the individual level (targets’ expectations that confrontation entails social costs for the individual) affect individual coping-processes within confrontation more strongly than collective action-processes within confrontation. Specifically, we investigated whether individual social cost-expectations are less critical when the targets pursue group confrontation goals more strongly (compared to targets who pursue group confrontation goals less strongly).
Despite extensive pretesting and adaptions of the materials, the manipulation of social cost- expectations did not affect participants’ behavior; thus, we could not test the proposed
vii approaches for follow-up studies.
Finally, I integrate all study results with regard to the model, discuss their contributions and implications for the literature, and present approaches for further research.
viii
Die vorliegende Dissertation beschäftigt sich mit dem Phänomen der verbalen Konfrontation als Reaktion auf eine interpersonelle Diskriminierung. Bisherige Forschung hat Konfrontation als individuell motiviertes Coping-Verhalten der von der Diskriminierung betroffenen Person betrachtet. Dabei wurde davon ausgegangen, dass die betroffene Person die negativen Auswirkungen von Diskriminierung auf individueller Ebene wahrnimmt und daher versucht, die eigene Situation mittels Konfrontation zu verbessern. In aktuellen Ansätzen wurde diskutiert, dass sich eine Diskriminierung jedoch dadurch auszeichnet, dass nicht nur das betroffene Individuum einen persönlichen Nachteil erfährt, sondern dass gleichzeitig die soziale Gruppe als Ganzes abgewertet wird. Somit ist die von der Diskriminierung betroffene Person zusätzlich durch diese gruppenbezogenen Auswirkungen betroffen und sollte daher bei der Konfrontation ebenfalls motiviert sein, mit diesen Auswirkungen umzugehen.
Basierend auf Ansätzen zur Sozialen Identität wird Konfrontation in einem neuen Modell als Resultat unterschiedlicher motivationaler Prozesse beschrieben: 1) individueller Umgang mit den individuellen Auswirkungen der Diskriminierung, 2) Umgang mit der Abwertung der Gruppe als Form von Collective Action, 3) Umgang mit der Abwertung der Gruppe, indem die Person sich von der Gruppe distanziert.
Dieses Modell wird in fünf korrelativen und vier experimentellen Studien geprüft, welche in drei Manuskripten beschrieben werden (NsManuskript #1 = 401/330/221/207/288; NsManuskript #2 = 241/284; NsManuskript #3 =260/264). Sämtliche in der Dissertation beschriebenen Studien folgen Open Science-Prinzipien: die Stichprobenumfänge wurden vorab (durch Poweranalysen) bestimmt, die Studien sind präregistriert; eventuelle Abweichungen von den Präregistrierungen werden begründet und transparent gemacht. Materialien, Daten, Analyseskripte und –outputs werden auf entsprechenden Plattformen öffentlich zur Verfügung gestellt.
In Manuskript #1 wird anhand von fünf Online-Szenariostudien eine Konfrontationsziel-Skala als Operationalisierung der unterschiedlichen Prozesse entwickelt. Dabei liefern die fünf
ix
hinweg Hinweise, dass sich die drei Zielbereiche individueller Nutzen, Gruppennutzen und Distanzierung strukturell unterscheiden; korrelative Zusammenhänge mit anderen Konstrukten (Identifikation mit der Gruppe, Disidentifikation von der Gruppe, weitere Collective Action- Intentionen) zeigen zudem an, dass das Verfolgen der jeweiligen Ziele jeweils unterschiedliche psychologische Prozesse wiederspiegelt. Die Ergebnisse bezüglich dem Verfolgen von individuellen und Gruppenzielen bestätigen die Annahme, dass dies jeweils den Umgang mit den individuellen Auswirkungen und eine Form von Collective Action wiederspiegelt. Die Ergebnisse bezüglich dem Verfolgen von Distanzierungszielen weisen darauf hin, dass dies zwar einen distinkten Prozess anzeigt, dieser Prozess jedoch nicht (ausschließlich) Distanzierung als ein unmittelbares (psychologisches) Verlassen der Gruppe darstellt.
Alternative Interpretationen werden diskutiert.
In Manuskript #2 wird anhand von zwei Online-Szenarioexperimenten in zwei Kontexten geprüft, ob die wahrgenommenen individuellen Diskriminierungsauswirkungen spezifisch das Verfolgen von individuellen Zielen in der Konfrontation hervorrufen und ob die wahrgenommene Abwertung der Gruppe spezifisch die Verfolgung von Gruppen- und Distanzierungszielen hervorruft. Ergänzend zu den Ergebnissen aus Manuskript #1 zeigt sich hier, dass eine Erhöhung des Ausmaßes an individuellem Nachteil spezifisch eine Konfrontation mit individuellen Zielen bewirkt, während eine Verringerung der Ambiguität bezüglich der Voreingenommenheit des Verursachers der Diskriminierung gegenüber der Gruppe spezifisch eine Konfrontation mit Gruppenzielen bewirkt. Die Ergebnisse bezüglich der Konfrontation mit Distanzierungszielen sind auch im experimentellen Design nicht mit der Annahme zu vereinbaren, dass dies eine Reaktion auf die Abwertung der Gruppe durch ein unmittelbares Verlassen der Gruppe darstellt. Die Diskussion der alternativen Interpretationen wird hier weitergeführt.
x
Collective Action-Prozess. Hier wird untersucht, ob sich die Differenzierung von unterschiedlichen Prozessen auch bedeutsam in tatsächlichem Konfrontationsverhalten wiederspiegelt. In zwei aufwändigen Konföderierten-Experimenten (Experiment 1: Labor;
Experiment 2: Online) wurde daher die Frage untersucht, ob konfrontationshemmenden Faktoren auf der individuellen Ebene (die Erwartung, dass die Konfrontation soziale Kosten für das Individuum mit sich bringt) den individuellen Prozess innerhalb Konfrontation stärker beeinflussen als den Collective-Action-Prozess innerhalb Konfrontation. Konkret sollte untersucht werden, ob individuellen sozialen Kosten eine niedrigere Bedeutung zukommt wenn die diskriminierte Person in einem stärkeren Ausmaß Gruppenziele verfolgt (im Vergleich zu weniger starkem Verfolgen von Gruppenzielen). Trotz aufwändiger Vortestungen und Anpassungen des Designs war die Manipulation der Erwartungen bezüglich der individuellen sozialen Kosten nicht ausreichend verhaltenswirksam, so dass die Interaktionshypothese nicht getestet werden konnte. Methodische Erklärungen hierfür sowie mögliche Ansätze für Folgestudien werden diskutiert.
Abschließend werden sämtliche Studienergebnisse mit Blick auf das Modell integriert, deren Beiträge und Implikationen für die Literatur diskutiert sowie Ansätze für weiterführende Forschung aufgezeigt.
1
‘Each time a woman stands up for herself, without knowing it possibly, without claiming it, she stands up for all women.’
Maya Angelou
Targets’ Confrontation of an Interpersonal Discriminatory Incident
The term discrimination describes the social phenomenon when people are being treated inappropriately and unfairly because they belong to a marginalized social group (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010). Discrimination is a ubiquitous social issue and thus part of many people’s lives (e.g., Beigang, Fetz, Kalkum, & Otto, 2017; Ortiz-Ospina, & Roser, 2018;
Quillian et al., 2019). Social media provides an illustrative insight into people’s experiences with everyday discrimination: For example, Twitter hashtags like #metoo and #aufschrei bring
together incidents of sexism and sexual harassment, #schauhin and #schwarzesdeutschland incidents of racism, #ThingsDisabledPeopleKnow refers to ableism, #isjairre to saneism, or
#everydayageism to ageism.
Discrimination is a multifaceted and multidimensional phenomenon (Pincus, 1996; Zick, 2016). In the present thesis, I focus on discrimination in the form of specific interpersonal discriminatory incidents. By this, I refer to individual situations where one person (perpetrator) treats another person (target) negatively. Furthermore, the target in this situation perceives this treatment as discriminatory, i.e., they attribute the mistreatment to the perpetrator’s bias against the target’s social group. For example, a male clerk at a car rental company refuses to rent out a large car to a woman implying that the car is too difficult to maneuver for women. Another example refers to discrimination in the workplace: A male supervisor gives a high-profile job opportunity to a male employee telling the interested female employee that women do not “have
2
what it takes”. Ample research has examined factors that affect whether targets perceive an interpersonal incident as discriminatory (for recent overviews on this topic, see: Ashburn-Nardo
& Karim, 2019; Barreto & Ellemers, 2015). In contrast, the present thesis focuses on targets’
responses to incidents which they have attributed as discriminatory.
Accordingly, I approach these interpersonal discriminatory incidents from the targets’
perspective—e.g., examining the psychological perspective of the woman who wanted to rent the car or the woman who interacted with her supervisor (Swim & Stangor, 2007). Targets behave differently as a reaction to the discriminatory treatment (e.g., Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, &
Bylsma, 2003): While some might withdraw from the situation, ignore or even politely endure the mistreatment, others might verbally express their disagreement with the discriminatory treatment—so-called confrontation (Barreto & Ellemers, 2015). Ample research describes
confrontation as a phenomenon, including its antecedents and consequences (Mallett & Monteith, 2019). However, previous research has failed to provide a comprehensive and thorough model that takes into account what confrontation represents in its essence: a reaction specifically to discrimination that affects both the target as well as the target’s in-group. The present thesis fills this gap. I developed and tested a novel model that explains the underlying psychological
processes of targets’ confrontation of an interpersonal discriminatory incident: coping with both individual and group disadvantage.
First, I will illustrate why previous explanations of confrontation do not provide an adequate psychological model for this phenomenon. Second, I will argue that a model explaining confrontation must necessarily take individual and group disadvantage as the two essential components of discrimination into account. Third, I will outline the novel model. Next, I will summarize three manuscripts that present correlational and experimental studies testing this
3
model. Finally, I will integrate all results with regard to the model, discuss contributions to the literature, and critically reflect on the overall approach taken in this thesis.
Previous Conceptualizations of Confrontation
Previous social-psychological research on confrontation has approached confrontation as a phenomenon, describing observable characteristics, frequency, antecedents, and consequences of this phenomenon (for a recent overview of this field, see: Mallett & Monteith, 2019). Studies on confrontation likelihood were widely motivated by the noticeable intention-action gap of confrontation: Despite potential positive outcomes like personal satisfaction (Rasinski, Geers, &
Czopp, 2013), prejudice reduction (Chaney & Sanchez, 2017; Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Czopp, Monteith, & Mark, 2006; Hyers, 2007), and targets’ confrontation intentions (Brinkman, Garcia,
& Rickard, 2011), targets are often reluctant to confront (Swim & Hyers, 1999; Woodzicka &
LaFrance, 2001). Previous research has proposed different conceptualizations of confrontation as a phenomenon to explain confrontation likelihood. In the following, I will review the three recurring approaches: conceptualizing confrontation as a complaint, as an “emergency intervention”, and as an individual coping strategy.
In the early stages of confrontation research, a prominent way to conceptualize confrontation was to understand it as an act of complaining (e.g., Czopp & Monteith, 2003;
Hyers, 2007; Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Shelton & Stewart, 2004; Swim & Hyers, 1999). This approach referred to an influential model for complaining behavior (Kowalski, 1996). As a brief outline, this model proposes two defining components of complaining: the expression of
dissatisfaction and the specific purpose of pursuing individual intrapsychic and interpersonal goals (e.g., emotion regulation or amends made by the perpetrator). The model also explains how complaining behavior emerges: A state of self-focused attention generates awareness of a
4
discrepancy between preferred and actual states, resulting in dissatisfaction and negative emotions. This aversive state is resolved by complaining if the individual expects the
complaining to be beneficial for themselves. Accordingly, previous research on confrontation applied this model to confrontation behavior by conceptualizing discrimination as a cause for targets’ dissatisfaction and confrontation as a complaint aimed at resolving this dissatisfaction to the benefit of the confronting individual.
A related approach refers to insights about bystander intervention. It understands
discrimination not only as a cause of dissatisfaction (resulting in a generally negative affect) but also as a form of damage (resulting in a state of alarm). Accordingly, confrontation is
conceptualized as an individual intervention to this “emergency”. This approach resulted in the development of a heuristic model that explains confrontation as the results of a stepwise process with multiple hurdles for the targets as an individual: People need to attribute an event as
discriminatory and thus harmful, take responsibility for confronting, deciding how to confront, and put these intentions into action (Ashburn-Nardo & Karim, 2019; Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, &
Goodwin, 2008).
A third and to date probably the most popular approach refers to an influential stress and coping model (Lazarus, 1999; Folkman & Lazarus, 1984). This model describes people’s reactions to stressors as a complex interaction between the situation and the person; one distinctive feature of this model is the central role of individuals’ appraisals of the stressor, availability of resources, and effectiveness of the coping reaction. This approach does not utilize the stress-coping perspective in its full complexity, but rather refers to the main principles: It conceptualizes discrimination as a stressor and thus confrontation as a coping strategy to change the situation of the target, for example, by resolving the problematic situation and emotional regulation (Ayres, Friedman, & Leaper, 2009; Kaiser & Miller, 2001, 2004; Schneider, Tomaka,
5
& Palacios, 2001). Furthermore, this approach highlights the role of cognitive appraisals in explaining confrontation likelihood, especially expectations about individual consequences of confrontation (Czopp, 2019; Kaiser & Miller, 2001).
All three approaches conceptualize discrimination as an experience that implies
disadvantages for the individual target (the distress and denied access to resources). Accordingly, these approaches propose that targets confront to mitigate or resolve these individual outcomes (e.g., emotion regulation, gaining access to resources, or other forms of amends). In other words, previous conceptualizations have interpreted confrontation as individually-motivated behavior as a reaction to individual disadvantage.
Individual and Group Disadvantage as Essential Elements of Discrimination
I propose that these previous conceptualizations miss one crucial aspect, as discrimination does not entail exclusively disadvantage for the target as an individual: Only taking individual disadvantage into account fundamentally discounts the defining nature of discrimination that distinguishes this from non-discriminatory mistreatment—the accompanying group disadvantage.
Discrimination always entails a devaluation of the group as a whole which damages the group in the long run and to maintain the status quo.
Previous explanatory models of confrontation have not considered this group
disadvantage as a separate factor that potentially motivates confrontation. Some previous studies have examined group-related factors in the context of confrontation, but not with the aim of explaining confrontation as a phenomenon. Instead, this research has considered group-related factors only in regards to the question of whether targets attribute a discriminatory act as such—
which is a necessary antecedent for confrontation (Ashburn-Nardo & Karim, 2019; Ashburn- Nardo et al., 2008). Specifically, previous research has examined the role of (politicized) group
6
identification and identity salience as factors that increase the attribution of an event as discriminatory and thus disadvantageous for the individual (Leaper & Arias, 2011; Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003; Wang & Dovidio, 2017). In the following, I will argue why this previous consideration undervalues the significance of group-related factors in the context of confrontation and why a model for targets’ confrontation needs to take group disadvantage as a distinct motivating factor into account.
By definition, discrimination puts an individual at a disadvantage because they are a member of a particular group (Dovidio et al., 2010; Stroebe, Ellemers, Barreto, & Mummendey, 2009). A discriminatory incident thus expresses a bias against this group (e.g., women are generally untalented in spatial thinking or unfit for high-profile positions), which not only devalues the targets as a group member but is also disadvantageous for the group. This group disadvantage is not necessarily immediately effective in this particular situation, but
discriminatory incidents cumulatively harm the group as a whole (e.g., exclusion of women from technical/engineering fields or fewer women in leadership positions). Although targets of a discriminatory incident only suffer direct damage as an individual (e.g., they cannot rent the car or do not receive a job opportunity), they are aware of this group disadvantage. I argue that this perceived group disadvantage acts as a simultaneous but distinct stressor and thus elicits
simultaneous but distinct coping reactions—that can manifest in confrontation.
Empirical findings support this argument: Individual group members react to group
disadvantage without direct individual disadvantage (e.g., when they perceive that their group has a low status or is treated unfairly as a whole) with a variety of psychological and behavioral coping responses (e.g., Swim & Stangor, 2007; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986; Van Zomeren, 2013). Targets also perceive discriminatory incidents qualitatively different than non- discriminatory incidents, which indicates that group disadvantage also sets discriminatory
7
incidents apart from exclusively individual mistreatment (Mallett & Swim, 2005; Zhang, Barreto,
& Doyle, 2019). In a discriminatory incident, each individual and group disadvantage elicit distinct individual- and group-level threat perceptions in targets (Stroebe et al., 2009). Recent research has also acknowledged the specific role of the group disadvantage in targets’
confrontation and discussed different group-related confrontation motives and strategies (Becker
& Barreto, 2019; Becker, Barreto, Kahn, & de Oliveira Laux, 2015; Fischer, Becker, Kito, &
Zamantılı Nayır, 2017). However, this research has not resulted in a systematic model that explains the underlying motivational processes relating to these motives and strategies.
Coming back to the women in the examples described above, the woman at the car rental company thus might be both upset about not receiving the car and having to change plans and at the same time about him thinking women are bad drivers. The woman in the workplace might accordingly be upset both about missing this opportunity, which undermines her career, and about the sexism against women in der workplace. In sum, targets experience both individual and group disadvantage as qualitatively distinct elements of a discriminatory incident. Accordingly, they might cope with both elements: They might confront in order to obtain the car after all, but also to challenge the clerk’s bias against female drivers or to make the supervisor offer her the position after all, but also to fight against sexism in the workplace. In the following, I outline a novel model that conceptualizes confrontation as the manifestation of these different coping processes.
A Social Identity Model of Targets’ Confrontation of a Discriminatory Incident I have developed a model that takes this specific nature of discriminatory incidents into account when explaining confrontation. The model conceptualizes discrimination as a
combination of individual and group disadvantage, which elicit distinct but simultaneous coping
8
processes. The model further proposes that if targets react to the discrimination with
confrontation behavior, this confrontation behavior is the manifestation of these different coping processes. In doing so, I concur in principle with the previous stress and coping-approach by conceptualizing discrimination overall as a stressor (Bennett, Merritt, Edwards, & Sollers, 2004;
Salomon, Burgess, & Bosson, 2015; Schneider et al., 2001) and confrontation as a manifestation of coping to address this stressor (Brondolo, Brady Ver Halen, Pencille, Beatty, & Contrada, 2009); contrary to this previous approach, I propose components of confrontation as distinct stressors (Stroebe et al., 2009) which consequently motivate distinct coping processes.
Specifically, the model proposed three underlying processes of confrontation: individual coping with the individual disadvantage, coping with the group disadvantage as a form of collective action, and coping with the group disadvantage as a form of self-group distancing. Figure 1 visualizes the model.
Importantly, these motivational processes operate simultaneously but manifest in the same confrontation act. However, the observable confrontation act does not necessarily allow
conclusions about the respective shares of each underlying process. I thus operationalize the activation of each underlying motivational process through the pursuit of specific confrontation goals, individual-benefitting, group-benefitting, and distancing goals, respectively (Sweetman, Leach, Spears, Pratto, & Saab, 2013). In the following, I integrate several lines of research to establish the different motivational processes (e.g., confrontation of discrimination, reactions to non-discriminatory interpersonal mistreatment, complaining, coping with group disadvantage, collective action, self-group distancing, social identity) and describe each process in detail.
9
Figure 1. Visualization of the model of targets’ differently motivated confrontation of an interpersonal discriminatory event, using a woman’s confrontation of a sexist incident as an example. The relative size of the boxes representing individual and group disadvantage is not meaningful. Dashed boxes indicate a distinct coping process; gray-shaded boxes are labels for the coping processes. Figures in grayscale represent the psychological state concerning the group (here: women).
10 Coping with the Individual Disadvantage
One component of discrimination is an individual disadvantage. This disadvantage is both material (restricted access to resources and opportunities) and psychological (distress from the unpleasant social interactions and dynamics, e.g., incivility, condescension, exclusion; Cortina, Magley, Williams, & Langhout, 2001; Hershcovis, 2011; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009). The present model proposes that these outcomes specifically elicit individual coping to avert the individual disadvantage, manifesting in confrontation (Hershcovis, Cameron, Gervais, &
Bozeman, 2018; Wesselmann, Ren, & Williams, 2015). Furthermore, this individual coping- process is represented by the pursuit of individual-benefitting confrontation goals. Individual- benefitting confrontation goals can relate to both interpersonal (e.g., perpetrator stops
mistreatment, makes amends; e.g., Kowalski, 1996; Hyers, 2007) and intrapsychic goals (e.g., emotional release, feeling like one can do something; e.g., Rasinski et al., 2013).
Coping with the Group Disadvantage
The other component of discrimination is a group disadvantage. While previous conceptualizations of confrontation have neglected this aspect, a large body of research has examined how members of a social group react to group disadvantage in different contexts (stereotypes, stereotype threat, stigma, prejudice, structural discrimination). This line of research primarily examines how people react psychologically (e.g., which emotions, cognitions, and motivations occur) and subsequently identify how these processes manifest behaviorally (e.g., in participating in protests or leaving the group). Several theoretical frameworks integrate these findings (e.g., Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Shapiro, 2011; Shapiro &
Neuberg, 2007; Smart Richman & Leary, 2009; Wei, Alvarez, Ku, Russell, & Bonett, 2010). The present model refers to one of the most influential frameworks: the Social Identity Approach (Brown, 2020; Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). A fundamental assumption of this approach is that
11
people pursue a positive self-concept, which includes the social groups they belong to (“positive distinctiveness”). If the group is at a disadvantage and group membership is thus devalued, people adopt different identity management strategies to restore positive distinctiveness and thus cope with the group disadvantage (Tajfel & Turner, 1979, 1986). The present model focuses on two (extensively researched) strategies: defending the group (i.e., collective action) or leaving the group (i.e., self-group distancing).
Coping with the group disadvantage as a form of collective action.
One strategy to cope with group disadvantage is to strive for improving the status of one’s group (“social competition”). Ample research has examined how this identity management strategy can manifest in collective action (i.e., any action that is aimed at improving the status of the group; Van Zomeren, 2013). Collective action can manifest in a multitude of behaviors:
Previous research has examined forms that come intuitively to mind when thinking about defending the group, for example, going to protests, signing petitions, or participating in riots (e.g., Klandermans, 2014; Stürmer & Simon, 2009; Tausch et al., 2011; Van Zomeren, Postmes,
& Spears, 2008). Nevertheless, also less intuitive forms of collective action have recently started to be in the focus of this research line, for example, voting behavior (Otjes, Stroebe, & Postmes, 2019), deliberate inaction (Stroebe, Postmes, & Roos, 2018), or intergroup emotion regulation (Netzer, Halperin, & Tamir, 2020). Recent research has started to understand confrontation as a form of collective action (Fischer et al., 2017)—but not as a reaction specifically to the group disadvantage in the discriminatory incident.
The present model therefore proposes that the group disadvantage implies specific adverse outcomes for the targets as group members (devaluation as a group member, injustice for the group as a whole) and thus elicits coping with this group disadvantage in the form of collective action to improve the situation of the group as a whole, manifesting in confrontation.
12
Furthermore, this collective action-process is represented by the pursuit of group-benefitting confrontation goals. These group-benefitting goals relate to intergroup relations (e.g., members of the out-group changing their attitudes towards the target’s group; e.g., Hyers, 2007), broader social change (e.g., people in general reflect more on discrimination; e.g., Czopp & Monteith, 2003), and solidarity with the in-group (e.g., members of the in-group building opposition and supporting each other; Hornsey et al., 2006).
Coping with the group disadvantage as a form of self-group distancing.
However, not all people react to group disadvantage by defending the group, as people feel differently about their group membership (Brown & Pehrson, 2019; Ellemers, Spears, &
Doosje, 1997). When people are not strongly identified with the group or are even disidentified (i.e., the group membership has a negative meaning for them; Becker & Tausch, 2014), the group disadvantage implies a different adverse outcome. These targets do not feel devalued as a group member or are concerned about the injustice against the group. They feel distressed because they are being categorized as a group member against their will (Branscombe et al., 1999). Those targets adopt a different strategy to cope with the group disadvantage: leaving the group (“individual mobility”). When people cannot leave the group physically (i.e., when the group membership is permanent), they might leave the group psychologically by self-group distancing (Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2016; Ellemers et al., 1997). Previous research has found that this coping process can manifest behaviorally in presenting oneself as more similar to the out-group, emphasizing dissimilarities from other in-group members, and legitimization of the status quo (Derks et al., 2016; Derks, Van Laar, Ellemers, & Raghoe, 2015; Veldman, Van Laar, Meeussen,
& Bue, 2020).
The present model therefore proposes that the group disadvantage implies specific adverse outcomes for non/disidentified targets (categorization threat) and thus elicit coping with this
13
group disadvantage in the form of self-group distancing to leave the group psychologically, manifesting in confrontation. Furthermore, this self-group distancing-process is represented by the pursuit of distancing confrontation goals. These distancing goals relate to distancing from the in-group (e.g., demonstrating that one is different from the typical group member), making individuality salient (e.g., distancing oneself from the group), and even harming the in-group (e.g., getting an advantage over other in-group members; Becker et al., 2015; Becker & Tausch, 2014).
14
Manuscript Summaries
I tested this model in five correlational online scenario studies, two online scenario
experiments, as well as two behavioral experiments with confederates. Three manuscripts present the results of these studies, each with specific aims. Manuscript #1 had three aims: First, it builds the methodological foundation for this research by developing the Confrontation Goals Scale as a new operationalization of the different confrontation goals. Second, it tests whether the three proposed confrontation goals can be structurally distinguished. Third, it examines whether the pursuits of the three goals show theoretically meaningful associations with other constructs indicating that these goal pursuits represent the proposed underlying processes. Building on the results of Manuscript # 1, Manuscript’s #2 aim was to experimentally confirm that situational factors that respectively increase perceived individual and group disadvantage specifically
motivate confrontation pursuing different goals as proposed by the model. Finally, the purpose of Manuscript #3 was to examine the novel value of the model in predicting confrontation behavior.
Using the example of the role of social cost-expectations in confrontation pursuing individual- benefitting goals compared to confrontation pursuing group-benefitting goals, Manuscript’s #3 aim was to demonstrate that the model’s differentiation of the processes underlying confrontation provides a more nuanced prediction of targets’ confrontation behavior.
In the following, I summarize the key points of each manuscript, discuss results support the proposed model, and conclude whether each manuscript achieved its purpose as outlined above.
15 Summary Manuscript #1
Munder, A. K., Becker, J. C., & Christ, O. (2020). Standing up for whom? Targets’ different goals in the confrontation of discrimination. Manuscript published in the European Journal of Social Psychology. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2698
The first aim of Manuscript #1 was to develop an operationalization of the three proposed confrontation goals. We generated an initial item pool based on the appropriate literature and two qualitative pilot studies and further developed the Confrontation Goals Scale in five well-
powered and preregistered online scenario studies (Noverall = 1,447). In these five studies, participants read and imagined themselves in a scenario where a member from the out-group discriminated against them. Participants imagined to confront (Studies 1-2) or indicated their confrontation likelihood (Studies 3-5), completed the Confrontation Goals Scale as well as measures of group identification, disidentification, and further collective action intentions. To demonstrate the generalizability of all findings, we used different samples (convenience,
commercial quota sample, Prolific sample), two social groups (women and people above the age of 50), contexts (work and leisure), and cultures/languages (German and the USA) across studies.
The second aim of Manuscript #1 was to demonstrate that these goal pursuits were
structurally distinct. Conventional confirmatory factor analyses did not show adequate fit with the data. Recent research indeed argues that specifying zero cross-loadings is overly restrictive as the underlying assumption of all items being “100% pure” representations of the underlying
construct is often unrealizable (Marsh, Lüdtke, Nagengast, Morin, & Davier, 2013). Instead, it is recommended to systematically estimate and interpret cross-loadings with an exploratory
structural equation model (Marsh, Morin, Parker, & Kaur, 2014). Indeed, these models fit the data well across studies. Examinations of main- and cross-loadings overall indicate the proposed structure of distinct confrontation goals; few items were not appropriate for every context. The
16
non-substantial cross-loadings indicate those goal items indeed measure some variance and thus some content of other goals. Therefore, it is crucial for the interpretation of specific effects on the pursuit of one particular confrontation goals to simultaneously control for the pursuits of the other goals.
The third aim of Manuscript #1 was to test whether these goals pursuits had theoretically meaningful associations with identity-related constructs (group identification, disidentification, further collective action intentions). We conducted a small meta-analysis across all five studies for these effects, always controlling for the pursuits of the other goals, respectively. Specifically, the meta-analytical effect sizes for the respective associations between the pursuit of individual- benefitting goals and group identification, disidentification, and further collective action intention were less than small (rs = .05/-.02/.03). The pursuit of individual-benefitting goals thus does not share unique variance with group-relevant constructs, which indicates that confrontation with an individual-benefitting goal represents coping with the individual disadvantage.
In contrast, the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals shared unique variance with these group-relevant constructs, which indicates that confrontation with these goals
represents coping with the group disadvantage: The meta-analytical effect size for the positive association between the pursuit of group-benefitting goals and group identification was medium- to-large (r = .34) while the association with disidentification was less than small (r = .01); this suggests that confrontation with a group-benefitting goal represents coping with the group devaluation as a form of collective action as previous research has identified group identification as an important predictor of pro-group behavior (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Van
Zomeren, 2013) while disidentification represents a different motivational state and does therefore not predict pro-group behavior (Becker & Tausch, 2014). Finally, the meta-analytical effect size for the positive association between the pursuit of group-benefitting goals and further
17
collective action intention was large (r = .53), which indicates that these are similar constructs and further corroborates that confrontation with a group-benefitting goal represents a form of collective action.
The results regarding the pursuit of distancing goals were not entirely consistent with the model. On the one hand, a positive association between the pursuit of distancing goals and disidentification (medium-to-large meta-analytical effect size, r = .45) indicates that
confrontation with a distancing goal represents coping with the group devaluation as a form of self-group distancing (Becker & Tausch, 2014). On the other hand, there was also a positive association with group identification (small meta-analytical effect size, r = .17), which
contradicts this interpretation. Still, the pursuit of distancing goals was negatively associated with further collective action intentions (small meta-analytical effect size, r = -.12), indicating that this represents an act against the group. Overall, results indicate that confrontation with a distancing goal partly represents a form of self-group distancing, but also a form of pro-group behavior.
Finally, results on associations between the goal pursuits complement these interpretations: As coping with the individual and group disadvantage coincide, they are
compatible which is reflected by positive associations between individual-benefitting goals and group-benefitting goals (large meta-analytical effect size, r = .49) as well as distancing goals (small meta-analytical effect size, r = .09), respectively. In contrast, coping with the group devaluation through a form of collective action (i.e., acting as a member of the group) or self- group distancing (i.e., leaving the group) should be incompatible. However, the association between group-benefitting and distancing goals was positive (small meta-analytical effect size, r
= .09), indicating again that confrontation with a distancing goal does not fully represent a form of self-group distancing.
18
Overall, Manuscript #1 reached all three aims. Besides providing the necessary operationalization of confrontation goals, results confirm the model’s proposition that targets pursue distinct confrontation goals. Furthermore, results confirm the propositions that the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals represents confrontation as a form of individual coping
specifically with the individual disadvantage and that the pursuit of group-benefitting goals represents confrontation as coping specifically with the group disadvantage as a form of collective action. Results are not compatible with the model’s proposition that the pursuit of distancing goals represents coping with the devaluation of the group as a form of self-group distancing.
19 Summary Manuscript #2
Munder, A. K., Becker, J. C., & Christ, O. (2020). Nuances of discrimination and confrontation: Perceptions of individual versus group disadvantage predict targets’ pursuit of different confrontation goals. Manuscript submitted for publication at Group Processes and Intergroup Relations.
Manuscript #1 provided a valid operationalization of the proposed confrontation and the first correlational support for the proposed model. The aim of Manuscript #2 was to demonstrate experimentally that more harmful individual disadvantage specifically motivates confrontation as individual coping (indicated by individual-benefitting goals) and more obvious group
disadvantage specifically motivates confrontation as a form of collective action (indicated by group-benefitting goals) or—for non-/disidentified targets—self-group distancing (indicated by distancing goals).
We conducted two well-powered and preregistered online scenario experiments (NExperiment 1 = 241, NExperiment 2 = 284). Similar to the studies in Manuscript #1, female participants read and imagined themselves in a scenario where a man discriminated against them (Experiment 1:
leisure context; Experiment 2: work context). In both experiments, we manipulated perceptions of individual and group disadvantage by varying the degree of individual harm (i.e., damage for the individual caused by the discrimination) and ambiguity of bias against women (i.e., cues that the perpetrator is prejudiced against women as a group) in the description of the discriminatory incident in the scenario. After reading the scenario, participants indicated their confrontation likelihood, and completed the Confrontation Goals Scale as well as measures of perceived harm and ambiguity as manipulation checks. We also measured group identification and
disidentification (Experiment 1: cross-sectionally; Experiment 2: a priori). Both experiments were thus 2*2 between subjects-designs (individual harm: low vs. high; ambiguity of group bias:
high vs. low).
20
In Experiment 1, there was a main effect of the harm-manipulation on targets’ reported pursuit of individual-benefitting confrontation goals (large effect size: ηpart2 = .05; no main effect ambiguity-manipulation or interaction): As predicted, participants in the high harm-condition pursued individual-benefitting confrontation goals more strongly than participants in the low harm-condition. Despite appropriate pretesting, the harm-manipulation in Experiment 2 did not affect participants’ pursuit of individual-benefitting confrontation goals (in line with the model, also no main effect of the ambiguity-manipulation or interaction); as this manipulation also did not affect perceived harm as a manipulation check, the manipulation was overall not successful and the test of the main effect probably not conclusive. We therefore used the measure of
perceived harm as an independent variable for a correlational test of this effect. Following model predictions, perceived harm (but not perceived ambiguity or their interaction) was positively associated with the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals (medium effect size, β = .32).
In Experiments 1 and 2, there was a main effect of the ambiguity of prejudice on targets’
reported pursuit of group-benefitting confrontation goals (small to medium/medium to large effect sizes: ηpart2 = .03/09; no main effects harm-manipulation or interactions). As predicted, participants in the low ambiguity-condition pursued group-benefitting confrontation goals more strongly than participants in the high ambiguity-condition.
In Experiments 1 and 2, (non-/disidentified) targets’ reported pursuit of distancing confrontation goals respective distancing-motivated confrontation was not affected by the manipulations of harm and ambiguity—which was against model predictions. Instead,
disidentification was directly (positively) associated with the pursuit of distancing confrontation goals in Experiment 1 (medium effect size, β = .30; disidentification measured cross-sectionally) and Experiment 2 (medium effect size, β = .43; disidentification measured seven months a priori).
21
Overall, Manuscript #2 reached its aim to experimentally confirm the model’s proposition that individual disadvantage specifically motivates confrontation as individual coping and group disadvantage specifically motivates confrontation as a form of collective action. Again, results contract the model’s proposition that confrontation with distancing goals represents a form of self-group distancing.
22 Summary Manuscript #3
Munder, A. K., Mallett, R. K., & Christ, O. (2020). Does targets’ pursuit of group goals promote confrontation assertiveness by decreasing the inhibitory effect of social cost- expectations? Manuscript in progress.
Manuscripts’ #1 and #2 correlational and experimental results provide strong support for the model’s proposition that confrontation can be the manifestation of distinct psychological processes: individual coping and collective action. Manuscript’s #3 aim was to demonstrate that this new understanding of confrontation provides a more nuanced prediction of confrontation behavior. Manuscript #3 uses the example of different effects of targets’ social cost-expectations on confrontation behavior.
The confrontation-literature almost exclusively references social costs when explaining why targets do not confront despite attributions of the incident as discriminatory and
corresponding intentions (e.g., Brinkman et al., 2011). Social costs refer to negative interpersonal evaluations of the target (e.g., they are derogated as oversensitive and a “complainer”; Kaiser &
Miller, 2001) and their negative consequences for the confronter (e.g., retaliation; Fitzgerald, Swan, & Fischer, 1995; Bergman, Langhout, Palmieri, Cortina, & Fitzgerald, 2002). While interpersonal evaluations of confronters are not necessarily negative (Mallett & Wagner, 2011), targets seem to expect negative interpersonal evaluations and consequences—which inhibits them from confronting (Ashburn-Nardo, Blanchar, Petersson, Morris, & Goodwin, 2014; Herrera, Herrera, & Expósito, 2018; Mallett & Melchiori, 2014; Shelton & Stewart, 2004; Swim & Hyers, 1999). Importantly, these social cost-expectations refer to outcomes on the individual level, i.e., the targets as an individual is being derogated and suffers further negative consequences.
Previous research indicates that people who are acting as a psychological group member and pursuing group goals are less concerned about individual outcomes (Doosje, Spears, & Ellemers,
23
2002; Louis, Taylor, & Neil, 2004; Packer & Miners, 2014; Stürmer & Simon, 2004; Tajfel &
Turner, 1979). We thus tested whether this applies to targets who strongly pursue group- benefitting confrontation goals. According to the model, the inhibitory effect of social cost- expectations should be significantly smaller or even non-existent for targets strongly pursuing group-benefitting confrontation goals—as this represents a distinct psychological process (collective action). In sum, we tested an interaction between social cost-expectation and confrontation goals.
For this research question, it was crucial to measure participants’ spontaneous behavioral responses to a real discriminatory incident instead of reported confrontation intentions in an imagined scenario (Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). We conducted two preregistered high-impact experiments with female undergrad students (Experiment 1: lab, N = 260; Experiment 2: online, N = 264).
In both experiments, participants interacted via chat with a male interaction partner (Experiment 1: actual confederate; Experiment 2: automated confederate). After a brief
introduction, they completed two tasks on their own; these tasks contained the manipulations of participants’ social cost-expectation (learning about negative vs. positive evaluations of
confronting women) and goals (writing about goals as an individual vs. as a woman). Thus, both experiments were 2*2 between subjects-designs (social cost-expectations: high vs. low; goals:
individual vs. group). After an unremarkable interaction task, we staged a discriminatory incident: The interaction partner refused to work together with the participant in a second study and justified this with his opinion that women were “not good with numbers”. After this incident, participants had the opportunity to confront him. We recorded their spontaneous responses and coded their confrontation behavior. Specifically, we coded the confrontation assertiveness on a 6- point scale as this allowed us to test the hypothesis with higher statistical power than a
24
dichotomous coding (confrontation: yes vs. no). For an additional description of the content of the responses, we also coded whether specific “themes” were present in the response (e.g., whether the participants made rational counter-arguments or expressed emotions).
In both studies, participants reacted similarly to the overall set up: Participants perceived the discrimination as highly unfair and attributed the interaction partner’s decision strongly to his sexist attitudes. Furthermore, the coded assertiveness ranged from both ends of the scale with the scale midpoint as mean. The respective frequency of each “theme” was also similar in both studies.
Despite careful conceptualization and pretesting, the manipulation of the social cost- expectations did not affect participants’ behavior sufficiently. In Experiment 1, high social cost- expectation referred to the primary form of social cost-expectations, i.e., abstract expectations that confronting women, in general, are evaluated negatively. We suspected that participants did not deduce expectations regarding the consequences of confrontation in the experimental
situation from this general expectation or did not perceive a mere negative evaluation from a stranger as aversive enough. In Experiment 2, we extended therefore further consequences to these general expectations, as we added to the cover story that the interaction partner could jeopardize the monetary compensation for the participants and made these “secondary” social costs salient. An appropriate pretest of this manipulation suggested that the social cost-
manipulation led to participants’ higher expectations that they could lose their monetary
compensation if they confronted (mediated by abstract expectations that confronting women, in general, are evaluated negatively). However, the goal-manipulation unintentionally interfered with the effect of the social cost-manipulation in the experiment—rendering the social cost- manipulation ineffective for participants in the individual goals-condition and producing a side effect for participants in the group goals-condition affecting confrontation assertiveness in an
25
inconclusive way (see Manuscript #3 for an in-depth discussion). Thus, we were not able to test our interaction hypothesis and Manuscript #3 did not reach its aim.
This outcome is undoubtedly unfortunate, as the conceptualization, conduct, and analysis of these studies were resource-intensive: Each lab session in Experiment 1 lasted on average 45 minutes and was supervised by an experimenter on a one-on-one basis, resulting in labor- intensive data collection over several months (including a research stay abroad). Experiment 2 was less resource-intensive regarding time (as the procedure was automated). However, it was necessary to invest financial resources as it would not have been possible to collect a sufficiently large sample size of this specific population without offering appropriate monetary
compensation. Finally, a total of 524 individual responses had to be coded by two coders,
respectively. This procedure also entailed thorough training of the coders, comparison of codings, and the discussion of diverging codings. While scenario studies would have been more
economical and thus a less risky choice, only elaborate behavioral studies like these provide a reliable and valid operationalization of confrontation behavior—which was the dependent variable of interest. For the purpose of this thesis, a verdict of the merit of the model explaining confrontation behavior remains unresolved. Manuscript #3 discusses directions for future follow- up studies that will answer this question.
26 General Discussion
The present thesis proposed and tested a new model of targets’ confrontation of an interpersonal discriminatory incident as the manifestation of distinct but simultaneous
psychological processes: individual coping with the individual disadvantage, coping with group disadvantage as a form of collective action, and coping with group disadvantage as a form of self- group distancing. Overall, results from nine studies presented in three manuscripts confirm that confrontation is not one uniform process driven by self-serving motives. Instead, confrontation can be differently motivated and thus directed at different goals. These confrontation goals are not only distinct but share specific and theoretically meaningful variance with group
identification, disidentification, and collective action intentions (Manuscript #1). Differently motivated confrontation is predicted distinctively by characteristics of the discriminatory incident, specifically the degree of individual harm and ambiguity of bias against the group (Manuscript #2). Finally, the aim of Manuscript #3 was to test whether targets’ anticipations of the consequences of their behavior affected confrontation as a form of collective action
differently than confrontation as a form of individual coping; due to methodological shortcomings, we could not test this interaction hypothesis.
In the following, I will integrate the findings across studies and discuss the implications of these findings for each process in the initially proposed model. Figure 2 shows a visualization of the revised model. I will also outline specific contributions and implications for the literature, including directions for future research.
27
Figure 2. Visualization of the revised model of targets’ differently motivated confrontation of an interpersonal discriminatory event. Dashed boxes indicate distinct coping processes.
28 Confrontation as Individual Coping
According to the proposed model, targets use confrontation as an individual coping strategy in reaction to only one component of discrimination—individual disadvantage. This individually motivated confrontation was operationalized through the pursuit of individual- benefitting goals.
Integration results and implications for the model.
Results across studies consistently supported these propositions: The pursuit of
individual-benefitting goals was structurally distinct from the other goal pursuits (Manuscript #1, Study 1) and this structural distinctiveness generalized from a German-speaking convenience sample and the situation of sexist discrimination in the work context to US-American and quota samples as well to the situation of ageist discrimination and in the leisure context (Manuscript #1, Studies 2-5). Both results from correlational and experimental scenario studies confirm that the imagined pursuit of individual-benefitting goals is not only a distinct process, but also
specifically and exclusively motivated by the individual disadvantage: The pursuit of individual- benefitting goals was independent of targets’ attitudes towards the group (Manuscript #1, Studies 1-5), stronger when the perceived individual harm resulting from the discrimination was higher, but unaffected by the ambiguity of bias against the group (Manuscript #2, Experiments 1 & 2).
Results thus overall support the respective process in the model as proposed.
Contributions to the literature and directions for future research.
Targets’ confrontation of discrimination is thus only partly the manifestation of an
individual coping process. The essential contribution of the finding to the confrontation-literature is the refutation of the previously widely-held conceptualization of this behavior as exclusively driven by self-serving motives: Individual-level processes play a role in motivating
29
confrontation—but only to the extent of coping with the individual disadvantage, which is only one side of discrimination.
This more nuanced understanding of confrontation provides several implications for research on targets’ confrontation: First, future research could examine situational and individual factors that affect the relative share of individual coping processes in motivating confrontation.
For example, a more harmful individual mistreatment elicits a stronger individual coping
processes as a response. Importantly, not the “objective” harm is necessarily effective in eliciting this coping process, but targets’ perceptions of individual harm resulting from the discrimination.
Results from Experiment 2 in Manuscript #2 indicate that targets’ perceptions of the harm of the individual mistreatment have substantial interindividual variability. Future research could examine the interplay of situational factors (e.g., specific individual outcomes of discrimination) and interindividual differences (e.g., individual relevance of the denied opportunity or sensitivity to hurt feelings; MacDonald, 2009).
Second, future research could examine the individual coping process in more depth, referring to models of individual coping (Folkman & Lazarus, 1984; Lazarus, 1999). Experiment 2 presented in Manuscript #2 attempted to test individual-level threat perceptions as a mediator, but did not provide a conclusive test as the operationalization of individual-level threat was unsuccessful (Manuscript #2, Supplementary Online Material). Another new research line could examine targets’ anticipations about individual consequences of confrontation as well as when and how they become effective specifically in promoting or inhibiting individually motivated confrontation. Results from Experiments 1 and 2 in Manuscript #3 indicate that the effect of targets’ anticipations about individual negative consequences (social costs) might be more complicated than previously assumed, as general-level social cost-anticipations did not inhibit confrontation.
30
Finally, having a better understanding of factors that inhibit and promote individually motivated confrontation as coping with the individual distress from discrimination provides a better understanding on the long term effects of discrimination on targets’ health: Individuals’
distress from discrimination affects their psychological and even physiological well-being over time (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Hakim, Molina, & Branscombe, 2017; Paradies, 2006; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Schmitt, Branscombe, Postmes, & Garcia, 2014).
Identifying factors that boost successful individual coping in the form of confrontation could buffer adverse health outcomes.
Confrontation as Collective Action
According to the proposed model, targets use confrontation to cope with the other component of discrimination—group disadvantage. We proposed that (especially highly identified) targets cope with the group disadvantage as a form of collective action. This
collectively motivated confrontation was operationalized through the pursuit of group-benefitting goals.
Integration results and implications for the model.
Results across studies consistently supported these propositions: Across different samples and contexts, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was structurally distinct from the other goal pursuits (Manuscript #1, Studies 1-5). Results from correlational and experimental scenario studies confirm that the imagined pursuit of group-benefitting goals is also specifically and exclusively motivated by the group disadvantage: The pursuit of group-benefitting goals was exclusively (positively) associated with group identification and further collective action intentions (Manuscript #1, Studies 1-5), stronger when the ambiguity of bias against the group was low, but it was unaffected by the degree of individual harm (Manuscript #2, Experiments 1
& 2). Results overall supported the respective process in the model as proposed.
31
Contributions to the literature and directions for future research.
Targets’ confrontation of discrimination is thus partly also the manifestation of a
collective coping process, i.e., a form of collective action. Recent research has started to discuss collective motives and strategies in targets’ confrontation of discrimination (Becker & Barreto, 2019; Becker e al., 2015; Fischer et al., 2017)—the present thesis is the first to systematically demonstrate that group disadvantage specifically motivates this process and provides an operationalization (group-benefitting confrontation goals). This conceptualization integrates previously unconnected lines of research on confrontation and collective action and provides a more nuanced understanding of confrontation and manifestations of collective action.
This new understanding of confrontation as a form of collective action expands previous models of confrontation, which were limited to individual-level processes. Future research on confrontation could systematically utilize previous extensive insights into predictors and consequences of collective action to examine situational and individual factors that increase the relative share of collective coping processes as well as predictors and barriers that specifically impact this confrontation process (Radke, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2016; Van Zomeren, 2013).
Distancing Confrontation
According to the proposed model, some (especially non- or disidentified) targets cope with the group disadvantage as a form of self-group distancing. This distancing motivated confrontation was operationalized through the pursuit of distancing goals.
Integration results and implications for the model.
The overall results did not fully support these propositions. Results yet indicate that confrontation with distancing goals represents a motivational process distinct from individually and collectively motivated confrontation (Manuscript 1, Studies 1-5). However, results from correlational and experimental scenario studies contradict that the pursuit of distancing goals
