Prejudice

Prejudice is defined by Wright and Taylor (2007) as a social evaluation of a group with negative emotions attached to it. The specific topic for this assignment is gender prejudice. Gender prejudice, defined by Eckes and Trautner (2000, as cited in Brinkman & Rickard, 2009) as “the attitude that a group deserves lower social status based in gender related categorization”, is experienced by both women and men on a daily basis, however, most research focuses almost exclusively on the prejudice experienced by women (historically referred to as sexism). Three articles describe the various instances of gender prejudice experienced by both men and women in varied settings and at various times.

The first article by Brinkman, Garcia, and Rickard (2009) wanted to explore the discrepancies between the response that women wanted to use when confronted with gender prejudice versus the response they engaged in. The study aimed to answer the questions of whether this discrepancy existed, what reasons do women give for not using the desired response, and what type od response is used when women want to use a confrontational one.

The results of this study showed that women often desire to use a confrontational response much more than they actually use one (such as wanting to slap them, but not doing so) with 34 percent of women reporting a discrepancy in the desire/action dichotomy (Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 2011). Various reasons were given by participants for not engaging in their desired response which included the cost/benefit of the action, the social norms violated by the action, the setting limitations (such as physical barriers, etc.) and personality characteristics (Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 2011). Furthermore, women who reported desiring a confrontational response utilized various alternatives to what they wanted including doing nothing (53%) and other confrontational responses (22%, such as calling the perpetrator out instead of slapping them). The final hypothesis was supported in that the study found that women who did nothing about a gender prejudice incident reported lower levels of distress than women who used other responses (Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 2011).

The second article sought to explore the types of gender prejudice that both women and men experience on a daily basis. Using a daily-diary system paired with a positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) like in the first study, women and men reported experiencing personal prejudice events (perpetrated against them specifically) as well as prejudice against their group and against others not in their group, with the distribution of the type of prejudice experienced differing based on which target was experiencing the prejudice (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009).

The study showed that there were significant differences in the gender of the perpetrator based on the gender of the target with women reporting mostly male perpetrators while men reported mostly women. However, men also reported a large number (20%) of male perpetrators resulting in same-sex gender prejudice (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009). The study also found that both men and women experience gender prejudice from authority figures almost to the same degree, that women experience prejudice from male strangers more often than men experience it from female strangers, and men experienced more gender prejudice from friends or acquaintances than women (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009). The results also showed that men were more likely to be perpetrators of sexual objectification, and close friends and partners were more likely to perpetrate demeaning and derogatory actions (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009).

The final analysis of these two studies are that women and men both experience an equal number of gender prejudice events with the differences being in the gender of the perpetrators and the relationships the perpetrators have with the target (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009). Women experience much more negative affect when targeted by gender prejudice than men, and women have higher negative affect when they utilize some sort of response versus doing nothing (Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 2011). While the results showed that men experience gender prejudice at the same rate as women, the researchers caution that men also reported on observing women being targets (and being offended by these events) so men may not be targets of prejudice with equal frequency (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009).

This brings me to the third article which, for a change of pace, examines specifically the experiences of gender prejudice that men report and how they respond to these events. The purpose of this study was to understand the experiences that college men are having, the characteristics of the perpetrators, and the responses to these events, and what influences these responses (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016). The researchers hypothesized that men would experience greater amounts of gender stereotype events than other types, that they would have more male perpetrators, that more perpetrators would be friends, and that the amount of distress during the event would impact the responses to the events (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016). Utilizing a similar positive and negative affect schedule (PANAS; Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988) as the first two studies, participants rated the distress they felt about an event as they described their experiences (type of event, perpetrator characteristics, response, and desired response).

Results of this study showed that most men experienced gender prejudice events from female perpetrators, and from friends or partners (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016). Results showed that negative comments (48%) and comments about acting a certain way (44%) were almost evenly experienced by men and that most instances of gender prejudice were perpetrated by women (66%), and significantly more instances perpetrated by friends than strangers (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016). Of the four types of responses (confrontational, non-behavioral psychological, nonconfrontational, doing nothing) most participants reported using confrontation as a response (48%), with the higher distress levels experienced, the more likely a confrontational response was used (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016).

From this study, men do indeed experience gender prejudice (also known as sexual harassment/sexism) as often as women. However, the lack of research into men’s experiences can stem from the relatively less aggressive nature of their experiences (e.g., men experience more negative comments and gender stereotypes while women experience more aggressive sexual objectification). The results from this study may support a conclusion that men’s comments may seek to assert masculinity conformity while women’s comments may reflect an endorsement of this masculinity social concept (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016).

Gender prejudice is both subtle and blatant, and can be experienced as nasty comments, sexual objectification, and even workplace discrimination, however, gender prejudice is most often blatant due to the social norm of gender prejudice. While it is seen as wrong, engaging in gender prejudice can be acceptable based on the setting you find yourself, and the social situations that perpetrators and targets might find themselves in (Brinkman & Rickard, 2009).

Interpersonal interactions have an important role in socializing adolescents, and even adults (Poteat, Mereish, & Birkett, 2015). Throughout the lifespan, peers become a major source of support and social context, thus increasing peer influence opportunities (Poteat, Mereish, & Birkett, 2015). Individuals who experience prejudice within their interpersonal relationships can be affected in various ways. First, targets of gender prejudice will become more negative in peer interactions (Poteat, Mereish, & Birkett, 2015). Second, due to the social norms on gender and gender roles, many individuals may try to distance themselves from the targets of gender prejudice, to maintain their social desirability or social self. Finally, the effects of prejudice on group functioning is important to note as early prejudice effects relationships for large spans of time afterwards (Poteat, Mereish, & Birkett, 2015).

When subtle prejudice is examined, the effects on interpersonal relationships can be seen in nonverbal behaviors such as standing farther away from the target, making less eye contact, etc. and these actions reveal unconscious anxiety, discomfort, and avoidance, often completely unknown to the perpetrator. This can affect the way interpersonal interactions begin and end, as well as how positive/negative one sees them (Fiske, 2014). Blatant prejudice can affect interpersonal interactions and relationships as well. For instance, blatant prejudice can affect group homogeneity (the extent to which an individual sees the ingroups/outgroups as varied or similar) and can result in different experiences with social reality (Fiske, 2014). Furthermore, blatant prejudice can affect relationships by creating a ingroup/outgroup social hierarchy that results from the prejudice being socially adopted by the ingroup to define the outgroup (Fiske, 2014).

Gender prejudice, as mentioned before, is a phenomenon that is experienced by both women and men (also known as sexism and sexual harassment) and experiences vary based on gender of the perpetrator, setting, gender of the target, and type of target (e.g. individual, group, friend, partner, etc.). There are ways that research has suggested to minimize gender prejudice (both blatant and subtle). One such method to reduce gender prejudice is intergroup contact. This method, formalized by Gordon Allport (1945b, as cited in Fiske, 2014) lists several criteria that must be met in order to be effective. These criteria (equal status among the groups, common goals, cooperation with no competition, and authority sanction such as ordering groups to work together) utilized together have been shown to reduce prejudice and bias between groups that are fundamentally different (Fiske, 2014).

Another way to reduce gender prejudice comes from Brinkman, Isacco, and Rosén (2016). This article states that education programs informing men and women of the detriments of gender prejudice, and making them aware of alternative insight into the social constructs of masculinity and socially accepted norms, can be used by researchers and clinicians to alter the behaviors and social attitudes towards gender prejudice (Brinkman, Isacco, & Rosén, 2016). Finally, a third way that gender prejudice can be reduced is through utilizing the research by Brinkman, Garcia, and Rickard (2011) and their conclusion that many women (and possibly men) feel limited in their responses to blatant and subtle gender prejudice and thus decide to do nothing about the prejudice, even if it is discomforting and distressing. Researchers, policy makers, and individual citizens can change this by providing targets of gender prejudice socially acceptable and functional responses to gender prejudice events that does not limit the target in ways that other responses might (Brinkman, Garcia, & Rickard, 20011).

References

Brinkman, B. G., Garcia, K., & Rickard, K. M. (2011). "What I wanted to do…” Discrepancies Between College Women’s Desired and Reported Responses to Gender Prejudice. SEX ROLES, 65(5–6), 344–355. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s11199-011-0020-7

Brinkman, B. G., Isacco, A., & Rosén, L. A. (2016). College men’s experiences of gender prejudice. The Journal of Men’s Studies, 24(3), 312–325. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1177/1060826515600882

Brinkman, B. G., & Rickard, K. M. (2009). College students’ descriptions of everyday gender prejudice. Sex Roles: A Journal of Research, 61(7–8), 461–475. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9643-3

Fiske, S. T. (2014). Social beings: Core motives in social psychology. (3rd ed.). Hoboken, NJ: Wiley.

Poteat, V. P., Mereish, E. H., & Birkett, M. (2015). The negative effects of prejudice on interpersonal relationships within adolescent peer groups. Developmental Psychology, 51(4), 544–553. https://doi-org.ezp.waldenulibrary.org/10.1037/a0038914.supp

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. Doi: 10.1037/0022-3514.54.6.1063

Wright, S. C., & Taylor, D. M. (2007). The Social Psychology of Cultural Diversity: Social Stereotyping, Prejudice, and Discrimination. In M. A. Hogg & J. M. Cooper (Eds.), The Sage handbook of social psychology: Concise student edition (pp. 123-145). Los Angeles, CA: Sage.