Question (s): Does confronter race interact with the type of confrontation used in response to sexist humor to affect the perceived likeability of the confronter and effectiveness of the confrontation?
Hypotheses 1. We expect women using witty confrontations to be seen as more likeable. We also expect that witty confrontation might be seen as slightly less effective as serious/direct confrontation. 2. We expect that in response to the “angry Black woman” stereotype, Black women who use witty confrontation will be viewed differently than White women. We expect an interaction between race and confrontation type.
IVs: Confronter race (White, Black), Type of Confrontation (Witty, Serious) DVs: Likeability of the confronter, Effectiveness of the confrontation
Method Participants All participants will be recruited through the Amazon Mechanical Turk interface. We hope to recruit at least 200 participants who are over the age of 18. They must also reside in the United States and therefore be aware of domestic race relations. Design The study will use a 2 (race condition: Black, White) x 2 (confrontation condition: witty, serious) between-subjects design. The dependent variables are likeability of the confronter and effectiveness of the confrontation. Materials Participants will complete the survey online through a standard laptop or mobile device. The survey was created through Qualtrics XM and analyses will be performed through SPSS. In each condition, there will be an image of a woman for each race condition (Black or White). Both images have been matched for age, likeability, and attractiveness.
Likeability Measure After being presented with a name, image and reading a corresponding scenario, participants will answer a series of questions on a Likert scale of 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely). Likeability will be measured by averaging across participants ‘answers to the following 4 questions: 1. How much do you like the confronter? 2. To what extent do you think you would get along with the confronter? 3. How much do you want to be friends with the confronter? 4. To what extent do you want to be like the confronter? In addition, the following perceptions of the confronter will be explored: 5. To what degree is the confronter angry? 6. To what degree was the confronter’s response to the joke: - Justified - Appropriate - Friendly - Admirable - Aggressive - Over-The-Top - Emotional
Effectiveness Measure Similarly, after reading the scenario, effectiveness will be measured by averaging across participants’ answers to the following questions (or a subset of questions that hold together), on a Likert scale of 1 (Not at all) to 5 (Extremely): 1. To what degree does the confronter’s response make a difference? 2. To what degree does the confronter’s response tell [neutral man’s name] that the joke is unwanted? 3. To what degree will the confronter’s response stop [neutral man’s name] from making similar jokes in the future? 4. To what degree will [neutral man’s name] remember this remark the next time he considers being sexist?
Procedure After agreeing to an informed consent, participants will be asked to read a scenario (Appendix A) in which a man tells a sexist joke. Then, participants will be assigned to one of four conditions in which they will read either a witty or serious confrontation from either a Black or White woman. (Participants will be informed of race through the picture and name of the confronter.). Participants will then rate the confrontation on its effectiveness and the confronter on her likeability. Last, participants will answer demographic questions regarding age, sex, and race. They will also rate their agreement with the Black Lives Matter movement on a scale of 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Lastly, participants will be debriefed and thanked for their time.
Planned Analyses We plan to measure likeability of the confronter and effectiveness of the confrontation by aggregating participants’ answers to the aforementioned questions. The final group of questions chosen to measure likeability and effectiveness will be based on their reliability (Cronbach’s alpha about .70). We will conduct 2 (race of confronter: black, white) x 2 (type of confrontation: witty, serious) ANOVAs on effectiveness and likeability measures. Exploratory analyses (via ANOVAs) will be performed on the following ratings: angry, justified, appropriate, friendly, admirable, aggressive, over-the-top, and emotional.
Appendix A Confrontation Scenarios Serious Confrontation: [Holly/Shaniqua] and Ben are discussing their public speaking class, in which [Mollie/Shaniqua] currently has a C-. Ben proceeds to tell the following joke, “How do you know when a woman is about to say something smart? When she starts her sentence with, ‘a man once told me’.” [Holly/Shaniqua] replies to Ben, “Really? That’s sexist.”
Funny Confrontation: [Holly/Shaniqua] and Ben are discussing their public speaking class, in which [Mollie/Shaniqua] currently has a C-. Ben proceeds to tell the following joke, “How do you know when a woman is about to say something smart? When she starts her sentence with, ‘a man once told me’.” [Holly/Shaniqua] replies to Ben, “Really? That’s usually my cue to stop listening.”