Kimberly E. Chaney

Organizational Identity Safety Cue Transfers

Traditionally, researchers have focused on identity-congruent safety cues such as the effect of gender diversity awards on women’s sense of inclusion in organizations. The present studies investigate, for the first time, whether identity safety cues (e.g., organizational diversity structures) aimed at one stigmatized group transfer via perceptions of the organization’s ideology (social dominance orientation), resulting in identity safety for individuals with stigmatized identities incongruent with the cue. Across four studies, we demonstrate that White women experience identity safety from organizational diversity structures aimed at racial minorities (Studies 1 and 2), and men of color experience identity safety from organizational diversity structures aimed at women (Study 3). Furthermore, while White men similarly perceive the organization’s ideology, this does not promote identity safety (Study 4). Thus, we argue that individuals view organizations commended for diversity as promoting more egalitarian attitudes broadly, resulting in the transference of identity safety cues for stigmatized individuals.

Stigma by Prejudice Transfer: Racism Threatens White Women and Sexism Threatens Men of Color

In the current research, we posited the stigma-by-prejudice-transfer effect, which proposes that stigmatized group members (e.g., White women) are threatened by prejudice that is directed at other stigmatized group members (e.g., African Americans) because they believe that prejudice has monolithic qualities. While most stigma researchers assume that there is a direct correspondence between the attitude of prejudiced individuals and the targets (i.e., sexism affects women, racism affects racial minorities), the five studies reported here demonstrate that White women can be threatened by racism (Study 1, 3, 4, and 5) and men of color by sexism (Study 2). Robust to perceptions of liking and the order in which measures were administered, results showed that prejudice transfers between racism and sexism were driven by the presumed social dominance orientation of the prejudiced individual. In addition, important downstream consequences, such as the increased likelihood of anticipated stigma, expectations of unfair treatment, and the attribution of negative feedback to sexism, appeared for stigmatized individuals.

The Endurance of Interpersonal Confrontations as a Prejudice Reduction Strategy

Previous work has found that individuals who have been confronted for discrimination demonstrate a reduction in explicit prejudice and use fewer stereotypes immediately after the confrontation. Although confronting prejudice has been touted as a tool for prejudice reduction, it is not known how these effects translate over time and what processes might account for their endurance. Across two studies, the present research finds that individuals used significantly fewer negative stereotypes 7 days after confrontation (Study 1) and engaged in behavioral inhibition to stereotypical cues on a probe task 1 week after confrontation. Moreover, guilt and prolonged rumination mediated these effects for confronted participants (Studies 1 and 2). Across two studies, the present studies reveal the lasting effects of interpersonal confrontations in prejudice reduction and the process by which these effects endure.

Gender-Inclusive Bathrooms Signal Fairness Across Identity Dimensions:

While gender-inclusive bathrooms serve a practical function of providing a safe public restroom for transgender individuals, they may also signal identity safety for women and racial minorities who may experience identity threat in organizations. Across three studies, we demonstrated that women (Study 1) and racial minorities (Blacks, Latinos; Studies 2 and 3) report greater procedural fairness and a more positive gender (Study 1) or racial (Studies 2 and 3) climate in organizations with gender-inclusive bathrooms compared to traditional bathrooms. Further, these effects were due to companies with gender-inclusive bathrooms being perceived as lower in gender essentialism (Studies 1–3), signaling more egalitarian social environments (Study 3) and promoting identity safety across stigmatized identity dimensions.

Theory of Prejudice and American Identity Threat Transfer for Latino and Asian Americans

Latinos and Asian Americans confront similar stereotypes as they are often presumed to be foreigners and subjected to American identity denial. Across six studies (total N = 992), we demonstrate that Latinos and Asians anticipate ingroup prejudice and specific types of subordination (e.g., American identity threat) in the face of outgroup threats that target one another (i.e., stigma transfer). The studies explore whether stigma transfer occurred primarily when shared Latino and Asian stereotype content was a salient component of the prejudice remark (e.g., foreigner stereotypes; Study 3), or when outgroup prejudice targeted a social group with shared stereotype content (Study 4), though neither appeared to substantively moderate stigma transfer. Minority group members who conceptualize prejudiced people as holding multiple biases (i.e., a monolithic prejudice theory) were more susceptible to stigma transfer suggesting that stereotype content is not necessary for stigma transfer because people assume that prejudice is not singular.

“But that was meant to be a compliment!”: Evaluative costs of confronting positive racial stereotypes

Past research on confronting racial prejudice has largely examined negative racial stereotypes. In the present work, we investigate perceiver and target perspectives associated with the evaluative costs of confronting positive racial stereotypes. We demonstrate that, in general, Asian Americans and African Americans who confront positive racial stereotypes suffer higher evaluative costs compared to targets who confront negative racial stereotypes and those who do not confront due, in part, to the lower perceived offensiveness of positive stereotypes (Studies 1 and 2). Moreover, Asian American and African American participants report lower confrontation intentions and higher anticipated evaluative costs for confronting positive, compared to negative, stereotypes. Furthermore, higher perceived offensiveness and lower anticipated favorable evaluations serially mediate the relationship between stereotype valence and confrontation intentions (Study 3). Overall, this research extends our understanding of the evaluative costs associated with confronting prejudice, with important downstream consequences regarding the continued prevalence of positive racial stereotypes.