Calling out prejudiced remarks at work not only challenges the comments themselves but also signals and potentially reinforces anti-bias norms within the workplace, according to new research from Purdue University. The findings suggest that confronting such biases can reset social norms in environments where prejudice occurs, thus supporting a safe identity for individuals who witness or are subject to these biases.
The new research, published in the Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, was motivated by the understanding that social norms—our beliefs about what behaviors are typical and acceptable within our community—profoundly influence individual behavior. If confronting bias can signal that prejudice is neither common nor condoned, it might encourage more inclusive attitudes and behaviors across the community.
“Previous research on bias confrontation mostly examines outcomes at the interpersonal level, showing that although perpetrators evaluate the confronter negatively, confrontation effectively reduces their bias,” said study author Anna Haoyang Li, a PhD student in social psychology at Purdue University.
“Other research also demonstrates that confrontation benefits groups targeted by the instance of bias, such as by signaling that their identities are safe in the environment. We were interested in the broader impact of confrontation. We approached the question from the perspectives of people who observed the confrontation (i.e., bystanders) and wondered whether confrontation would communicate anti-bias social norms to people in the local environment.”
In Study 1, researchers designed an experiment to examine how observing a confrontation against a biased remark influences perceptions of social norms within a specific environment—a workplace. Participants were 342 non-Hispanic/Latinx individuals recruited through Amazon Mechanical Turk. Each participant listened to an audio recording simulating a workplace scenario at a company. This audio was crafted to represent a conversation among coworkers in a break room discussing the hiring process.
Three conditions were presented to participants through this audio simulation: a no-bias condition, where no prejudiced comment was made; a non-affirmed confrontation condition, where a biased comment was made and confronted by another individual without further support from others; and an affirmed confrontation condition, where the biased remark was confronted and then additional coworkers verbally supported the confrontation.
The results showed that when participants observed a prejudiced remark being confronted, they perceived stronger anti-bias norms compared to when the remark went unchallenged. In the affirmed confrontation condition, participants reported a stronger restoration of injunctive norms (what behaviors are approved or disapproved) to baseline levels, indicating that support from others enhances the effect of the confrontation.
“We were surprised and excited about the finding that confrontation powerfully restored people’s perceptions of injunctive norms (i.e., people do not accept bias here) back to the level observed when bias has not occurred in the first place,” Li told PsyPost. “The literature suggests that injunctive norms have advantages over descriptive norms (i.e., people do not do biased things here) in encouraging norm-congruent behaviors. Thus, confrontation can likely inhibit bystanders’ bias in the future by sending the strong message that bias is not accepted here.”
Building on the findings of Study 1, Study 2 aimed to deepen the understanding of how bias confrontation impacts norm perceptions by adding a fourth experimental condition and expanding the participant pool. This study included 404 non-Hispanic/Latinx U.S. participants from Mechanical Turk. The added condition was a bias-not-confronted scenario where a prejudiced statement was made but followed by silence, without confrontation or affirmation.
The same methodology from Study 1 was employed, with participants listening to an audio recording of a workplace scenario. However, this time, additional measures were incorporated to capture a broader range of reactions.
The findings were consistent with those of Study 1 in that both forms of confrontation (affirmed and non-affirmed) significantly boosted perceptions of anti-bias norms over situations where bias was not confronted. The presence of confrontation — whether affirmed or not — led participants to expect stronger sanctions for biased behavior and influenced their intentions to self-regulate potential biases, suggesting that observing bias confrontation can enhance the commitment to anti-bias norms within a community.
Additionally, the social costs typically associated with confronting bias were lower in scenarios where bias was actively challenged, indicating a more favorable view of confronters when others affirm the confrontation.
In Study 3, the researchers aimed to validate and extend the findings of the previous studies by including a racially diverse sample and focusing on anti-Black bias, a critical area of prejudice research. This study involved 562 participants, both Black and White Americans, recruited through Mechanical Turk and Prime Panels. The method shifted slightly from audio to written transcripts to present the scenarios, allowing easier inclusion of more complex dialogue and participant diversity.
The scenarios again featured a workplace context with variations similar to the previous studies: no bias, bias not confronted, bias confronted without affirmation, and bias confronted with affirmation. This time, however, the researchers also measured participants’ sense of identity-safety, assessing how confrontation influenced their feelings of respect and belonging within the hypothetical company.
Both Black and White participants perceived stronger anti-bias norms when they observed bias being confronted compared to when it was not. For Black participants, affirmed confrontations were particularly effective, enhancing their sense of identity-safety and leading them to believe that anti-bias norms were robust in the confronted environment. This suggests that affirmation in bias confrontation not only helps in reinforcing anti-bias norms but also significantly impacts the personal well-being and sense of security of minority group members.
“When people do or say prejudiced things, people perceive that bias is tolerated in the environment,” Li explained. “But if someone confronts the bias, people perceive that bias actually is not accepted or common in the environment. Thus, confrontation is critical for restoring anti-bias norms following instances of bias. Our findings also suggests that these norms, in turn, contribute to target group members’ sense that their identities will be safe and and valued in the environment.”
While the study offers important insights, the researchers acknowledge some limitations. The scenarios used were controlled and may not fully capture the complexities of real-life interactions.
“We are currently investigating possible boundary conditions for the norm signaling effect of confrontation,” Li said. “The biased expression examined in the current research was blatant, but in everyday life bias is often expressed subtly. We are examining whether people will still perceive anti-bias social norms when someone confronts about a biased statement that is more subtle and ambiguous.”
“Perhaps with confrontation of subtle bias, people will explain the confrontation with respect to the confronter, perceiving them as being particularly sensitive and complaining. Additionally, we intend to examine whether confrontation will signal anti-bias norms when a marginalized group member confronts and whether the impact they achieve would be the same as dominant group allies.”
The study, “Following Prejudiced Behavior, Confrontation Restores Local Anti-Bias Social Norms,” was authored by Anna Haoyang Li, Elisabeth S. Noland, and Margo J. Monteith.
