Flexible confronters, informative confronters, and low stakes prodders: A person-centered approach to prejudice confrontation styles

IF 3.5 2区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL Personality and Individual Differences Pub Date : 2024-10-12 DOI:10.1016/j.paid.2024.112904
Emma Wedell , Kimberly E. Chaney
{"title":"Flexible confronters, informative confronters, and low stakes prodders: A person-centered approach to prejudice confrontation styles","authors":"Emma Wedell ,&nbsp;Kimberly E. Chaney","doi":"10.1016/j.paid.2024.112904","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<div><div>When people encounter prejudice, they may respond by expressing disapproval (i.e., confronting prejudice). Prior research has identified five primary features that characterize prejudice confrontations: educational, argumentative, help-seeking, empathy, and humor. In the present research, we used a person-centered approach to identify profiles of individuals based on these self-reported prejudice confrontation styles (PCS). Latent profile analyses were conducted across three online U.S. studies (<em>N</em><sub>total</sub> = 978) to classify individuals by PCS profiles. Four profiles classified undergraduates' and White adults' PCS: high in educational, help-seeking, and empathy and low in argumentative and humor (informative confronters), moderate in educational, help-seeking, empathy, and humor and low in argumentative (low stakes prodders), and low on all subscales (i.e., non-confronters), and moderate-to-high in all subscales (flexible confronters). Informative confronters, low stakes prodders, and non-confronter profiles emerged among the Black sample, but not the flexible confronter profile. Across the three samples, confronter profiles differed in several lay theories of prejudice and intentions to confront prejudice against a range of derogated and disadvantaged groups. These findings identified four primary PCS profiles and illustrated differences across profiles in how people think about and intend to respond to prejudice.</div></div>","PeriodicalId":48467,"journal":{"name":"Personality and Individual Differences","volume":"233 ","pages":"Article 112904"},"PeriodicalIF":3.5000,"publicationDate":"2024-10-12","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Personality and Individual Differences","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0191886924003647","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, SOCIAL","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

When people encounter prejudice, they may respond by expressing disapproval (i.e., confronting prejudice). Prior research has identified five primary features that characterize prejudice confrontations: educational, argumentative, help-seeking, empathy, and humor. In the present research, we used a person-centered approach to identify profiles of individuals based on these self-reported prejudice confrontation styles (PCS). Latent profile analyses were conducted across three online U.S. studies (Ntotal = 978) to classify individuals by PCS profiles. Four profiles classified undergraduates' and White adults' PCS: high in educational, help-seeking, and empathy and low in argumentative and humor (informative confronters), moderate in educational, help-seeking, empathy, and humor and low in argumentative (low stakes prodders), and low on all subscales (i.e., non-confronters), and moderate-to-high in all subscales (flexible confronters). Informative confronters, low stakes prodders, and non-confronter profiles emerged among the Black sample, but not the flexible confronter profile. Across the three samples, confronter profiles differed in several lay theories of prejudice and intentions to confront prejudice against a range of derogated and disadvantaged groups. These findings identified four primary PCS profiles and illustrated differences across profiles in how people think about and intend to respond to prejudice.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
灵活对抗者、信息对抗者和低赌注催促者:以人为本的偏见对抗方式
当人们遇到偏见时,他们可能会通过表达不赞同(即对抗偏见)来做出回应。先前的研究发现了偏见对抗的五个主要特征:教育性、争论性、寻求帮助性、移情性和幽默性。在本研究中,我们采用了一种以人为中心的方法,根据这些自我报告的偏见对抗风格(PCS)来识别个人的特征。我们对三项美国在线研究(总人数 = 978)进行了潜在特征分析,以根据 PCS 特征对个人进行分类。本科生和白人成年人的 PCS 分为四类:教育、寻求帮助和移情能力强,而争论和幽默能力低(信息型对抗者);教育、寻求帮助、移情和幽默能力中等,而争论能力低(低利害关系推动者);所有分量表上的能力都低(即非对抗者);所有分量表上的能力都中等至高(灵活型对抗者)。黑人样本中出现了信息型对抗者、低利害关系催促者和非对抗者特征,但没有出现灵活型对抗者特征。在这三个样本中,对抗者的特征在几种非专业的偏见理论以及对抗一系列被贬低群体和弱势群体的偏见的意图方面存在差异。这些研究结果确定了四种主要的PCS特征,并说明了不同特征的人在如何思考和打算应对偏见方面的差异。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
CiteScore
8.50
自引率
4.70%
发文量
577
审稿时长
41 days
期刊介绍: Personality and Individual Differences is devoted to the publication of articles (experimental, theoretical, review) which aim to integrate as far as possible the major factors of personality with empirical paradigms from experimental, physiological, animal, clinical, educational, criminological or industrial psychology or to seek an explanation for the causes and major determinants of individual differences in concepts derived from these disciplines. The editors are concerned with both genetic and environmental causes, and they are particularly interested in possible interaction effects.
期刊最新文献
The Golden Mean Inventory: A new approach to studying character strengths imbalances across contexts Inside Front Cover - Ed. Board, Aims and Scope, Copyright, Publication information, Orders and Claims, Advertising information, Author inquiries, Permissions, Funding body, Permanence of paper, Impressum (German titles only) and GFA link in double column ISSID Pages The number of exceptional people: Fewer than 85 per 1 million across key traits Priming moral self-ambivalence facilitates cognitive flexibility in young adults
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1