Program of Research
Meaningful relationships are a significant source of happiness and subjective well-being. However, attempting to create and maintain such relationships with others can be perilous—especially for stigmatized group members who often face rejection because of their socially devalued status. In my research I determine how people navigate their social worlds, including how they understand and control the world around them through individual and collective action. My work draws from social, political, and clinical psychology, sociology, gender and ethnic studies, higher education, and environmental science. I answer socially meaningful questions using multiple methods including survey research, quasi-experimental, and experimental designs. I complement more traditional research methods with high-impact lab studies, daily diary studies, and qualitative coding of videotaped behavior and written material.
When do people confront biased behavior and does it make a difference?
Modern media is filled with reports of workplace harassment from beauty pageant contestants, Hollywood actors, Silicon Valley programmers, and even social psychology graduate students. What factors shape whether the targets of harassment speak out or remain silent? I test the role of individual differences, goals, and the situation in shaping responses to discrimination. Some of this work is described in an edited volume entitled, Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination: The Science of Changing Minds and Behaviors (Mallett & Monteith, 2019).
Although most people assume they would confront sexism, assertive responses are rare. For instance, Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001) found that women imagined they would refuse to answer sexually harassing questions, but complied when asked the questions during an actual job interview. I followed up on this puzzling paradox using Woodzicka and LaFrance’s (2001) interview paradigm. I found that women’s responses to sexist questions increased in assertiveness along with their goal to be respected, but only when belonging needs were met (Mallett & Melchiori, 2014). Thus the likelihood of confrontation depends, in part, on the goal to be respected outweighing the goal to be liked.
Humor masks the biased nature of a remark, making disparagement humor more difficult to confront than serious expressions of bias. Although the underlying sentiment is the same, simply phrasing a remark as a joke rather than a serious statement reduces perceptions that the remark is biased and judgments that it is confrontation-worthy (Woodzicka, Mallett, Hendricks, & Pruitt, 2015). Using a computer-mediated instant messaging paradigm, I randomly assigned women to receive the same sexist remark phrased in a serious manner or as a joke. I found that delivering a sexist remark as a joke, compared to a serious statement, tempered perceptions that the speaker was sexist which, in turn, made women less likely to confront (Mallett, Ford, & Woodzicka, 2016). Reducing the perceived sexism of the perpetrator also increased tolerance of sexist behavior and sexual harassment more generally.
Little research examines how people respond in-the-moment when confronted for biased behavior. I found that men responded better than would typically be expected to face-to-face accusations that they were sexist (Mallett & Wagner, 2011). More specifically, when men pursued a liking goal, they used strategies similar to those used by stigmatized group members (e.g., smiling, seeking common ground)—even when their interaction partner had just accused them of being sexist. In fact, men’s responses to being confronted for sexism (versus a merely insulting remark) increased mutual liking with their partner and enabled them to control their future use of sexist language.
Much of my research brings people from different social groups together to examine how individual differences and situational factors influence intergroup contact. This approach is rare as most research relies on retrospective recall of one’s behavior or on responses to imagined scenarios. Although these methods provide valuable information about intergroup contact, examining the dynamics of intergroup contact as it unfolds face-to-face provides essential information about the process.
How do targets of prejudice identify and respond to perceived bias?
Navigating the promise and pitfalls of intergroup interactions poses challenges for both stigmatized and non-stigmatized group members (Mallett, Akimoto, & Oishi, 2016). Some stigmatized group members are adept at anticipating the possibility of prejudice which allows them to proactively cope with discrimination and minimize negative consequences. For example, to avoid a look of disgust, a heavy woman might smile and cheerfully greet a man who is walking toward her. Using a high-impact lab study and a daily diary study, I found that expectations of harm determine whether proactive coping strategies are used to protect the self or change the stressful situation (Mallett & Swim, 2005). When heavy women effectively changed the situation to meet their needs, they experienced positive interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes. I also found that African-Americans used self-focused proactive coping more than situation-focused coping or avoidance. Relative to reports made the day of the discriminatory event, when recalling how they typically dealt with racial discrimination, African-Americans under-estimated their use of self-focused strategies and over-estimated their use of situation-focused strategies (Mallett & Swim, 2009). Thus, people may not always be aware of how they cope.
Proactive coping requires that one identify prejudice-related threats. Yet prejudice is often ambiguous, making it difficult to determine what beliefs and behaviors should be considered prejudicial. Some beliefs and behaviors (e.g., traditional gender stereotypes) are more likely to be perceived as sexist than others (e.g., unwanted sexual touching; Swim, Mallett, Russo-Devosa & Stangor, 2005). Failing to define beliefs and behaviors as sexist may perpetuate the existence of sexist beliefs and behaviors and allow people to continue believing they are not sexist. In fact, people who endorse Modern Sexist beliefs are less likely to define sexist language as sexist and are therefore less likely to detect the occurrence of sexist language, and more likely to use sexist language (Swim, Mallett, & Stangor, 2004).
Can altering expectations facilitate positive intergroup contact?
A century of research on prejudice and intergroup relations demonstrates that people typically expect the worst from intergroup contact. People anticipate that they will feel anxious and have negative experiences when interacting with others who are from a different social group. This is true for people who belong to socially devalued or “stigmatized” groups (e.g., race, gender, size) and for people who are not stigmatized. Many times these expectations are confirmed and intergroup contact is more unpleasant than contact with people from similar social groups. However, contact is not always negative. One aim of my research is to identify factors that form a foundation for intergroup friendship.
In research supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, I investigated the Intergroup Forecasting Error, or the tendency to expect the worst from intergroup interactions even though, many times, they turn out better than anticipated (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). When randomly assigned to predict how future interactions with members of different social groups would proceed, participants imagined a more negative encounter than was actually experienced by a separate group who were asked to report how intergroup interactions actually went. Expectations were more negative than actual experiences because people overestimated stress and underestimated similarities they would discover during the interaction. Simply encouraging non-stigmatized people to consider mundane similarities with their interaction partner changed their expectations to match their positive experiences.
Even if an intergroup interaction goes better than expected it can still produce anxiety, which reduces willingness to engage in future contact. Allport (1954) argued that intergroup contact which creates “friendship potential” is one of our best hopes for reducing prejudice and discrimination. Accordingly, I tested whether an intervention that increased people’s expectations about the pleasantness of an interracial interaction would make an actual interaction more pleasant and less cognitively draining (Mallett & Wilson, 2010). I found that a relatively simple intervention increased the positivity of White college students’ interactions with a Black student they had never met and dramatically increased the number of interracial friendships they formed in the ensuing weeks. As a result of this work, APA’s publishing division invited me to compile an edited volume entitled Moving Beyond Prejudice Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations (Tropp & Mallett, 2011).
Why do people with privilege engage in collective action on behalf of a disadvantaged outgroup?
Much research has investigated what motivates stigmatized group members to engage in collective action to change the status quo. Little research tells us what motivates non-stigmatized group members to act on behalf of an outgroup (Mallett, Sinclair, & Huntsinger, 2005). Perspective taking and group-based guilt may prompt non-stigmatized group members to use their privilege and act in coalition with stigmatized groups to reduce social inequality. I found that perceiving group differences (e.g., Whites are more likely than Blacks to have an economic “safety net”) as examples of inequality, believing that one’s group is responsible for the difference, and perceiving few justifications for the difference predict group-based guilt for Whites, men and women (Mallett & Swim, 2004; 2007).
I then tested whether group-based guilt motivated non-stigmatized individuals to engage in collective action on behalf of an outgroup in the context of actual hate crimes that targeted African American and lesbian, gay and bisexual students on college campuses. Among heterosexual and White students, perspective taking was positively related to actual participation in collective action on behalf of the outgroup. Moreover, White guilt mediated the relation between perspective taking and actual participation in collective action (Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair & Swim, 2008).
As a member of the campus community at the time of the hate crimes, I was struck by the variability in reactions to the events. Some people were outraged by the attacks while others did not see them as problematic. Building on the idea that hate crimes that target low-status groups are a way to keep such groups “in their place”, I found that people who are motivated to maintain the current social system perceived little harm from hate crimes that targeted low-status groups and, as a result, opposed policies designed to address hate crimes (Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, 2011). Interestingly, people motivated to maintain the current social system perceived more harm when hate crimes targeted high-status groups.
Can we nudge people toward environmentally conscious behavior?
I also investigate factors that promote social change via altering personal behavior or engaging in collective action. Some of this research concerns promoting environmentally conscious behavior. I find that eco-guilt mediates the relation between personal standards about environmental behavior and both public and private efforts to protect the environment (Mallett, 2012). Additionally, I find that self-confrontation via carbon footprint feedback about the impact of one’s behavior on the environment increases eco-guilt when people learn that they, or a group to which they belong, create more carbon emissions than their peers. Eco-guilt then partially mediates the association between carbon footprint feedback and support for a pro-environmental group (Mallett, Melchiori, & Strickroth, 2013).
In collaboration with the Institute for Environmental Sustainability, I conducted an intervention to reduce water consumption in residence halls. Students in residence halls experienced a “water saver” identity-building campaign, received retrofitted fixtures that limited water use, received both, or received neither intervention (Mallett & Melchiori, 2016; Melchiori, Mallett, Durnbaugh, & Pham, 2016). I found that by itself, the identity-building campaign reduced actual water use, but only for those who successfully internalized a water-saver self-identity. In isolation, the identity-building campaign produced as much water conservation as installing retrofits. Thus, internalizing a new conservation self-identity is a previously untapped pathway to promote environmentally-responsible behavior.
In sum, my research tests meaningful social questions about reducing bias and increasing prosocial behavior. I complement my use of survey research with quasi-experimental and experimental interventions, high-impact lab studies, and qualitative coding of videotaped behavior and written material. By approaching the same question from multiple angles, I provide a more complete picture of complex social interactions that are tainted by bias or self-interest. Our modern world ensures that I will have ample inspiration for my work in the foreseeable future.
When do people confront biased behavior and does it make a difference?
Modern media is filled with reports of workplace harassment from beauty pageant contestants, Hollywood actors, Silicon Valley programmers, and even social psychology graduate students. What factors shape whether the targets of harassment speak out or remain silent? I test the role of individual differences, goals, and the situation in shaping responses to discrimination. Some of this work is described in an edited volume entitled, Confronting Prejudice and Discrimination: The Science of Changing Minds and Behaviors (Mallett & Monteith, 2019).
Although most people assume they would confront sexism, assertive responses are rare. For instance, Woodzicka and LaFrance (2001) found that women imagined they would refuse to answer sexually harassing questions, but complied when asked the questions during an actual job interview. I followed up on this puzzling paradox using Woodzicka and LaFrance’s (2001) interview paradigm. I found that women’s responses to sexist questions increased in assertiveness along with their goal to be respected, but only when belonging needs were met (Mallett & Melchiori, 2014). Thus the likelihood of confrontation depends, in part, on the goal to be respected outweighing the goal to be liked.
Humor masks the biased nature of a remark, making disparagement humor more difficult to confront than serious expressions of bias. Although the underlying sentiment is the same, simply phrasing a remark as a joke rather than a serious statement reduces perceptions that the remark is biased and judgments that it is confrontation-worthy (Woodzicka, Mallett, Hendricks, & Pruitt, 2015). Using a computer-mediated instant messaging paradigm, I randomly assigned women to receive the same sexist remark phrased in a serious manner or as a joke. I found that delivering a sexist remark as a joke, compared to a serious statement, tempered perceptions that the speaker was sexist which, in turn, made women less likely to confront (Mallett, Ford, & Woodzicka, 2016). Reducing the perceived sexism of the perpetrator also increased tolerance of sexist behavior and sexual harassment more generally.
Little research examines how people respond in-the-moment when confronted for biased behavior. I found that men responded better than would typically be expected to face-to-face accusations that they were sexist (Mallett & Wagner, 2011). More specifically, when men pursued a liking goal, they used strategies similar to those used by stigmatized group members (e.g., smiling, seeking common ground)—even when their interaction partner had just accused them of being sexist. In fact, men’s responses to being confronted for sexism (versus a merely insulting remark) increased mutual liking with their partner and enabled them to control their future use of sexist language.
Much of my research brings people from different social groups together to examine how individual differences and situational factors influence intergroup contact. This approach is rare as most research relies on retrospective recall of one’s behavior or on responses to imagined scenarios. Although these methods provide valuable information about intergroup contact, examining the dynamics of intergroup contact as it unfolds face-to-face provides essential information about the process.
How do targets of prejudice identify and respond to perceived bias?
Navigating the promise and pitfalls of intergroup interactions poses challenges for both stigmatized and non-stigmatized group members (Mallett, Akimoto, & Oishi, 2016). Some stigmatized group members are adept at anticipating the possibility of prejudice which allows them to proactively cope with discrimination and minimize negative consequences. For example, to avoid a look of disgust, a heavy woman might smile and cheerfully greet a man who is walking toward her. Using a high-impact lab study and a daily diary study, I found that expectations of harm determine whether proactive coping strategies are used to protect the self or change the stressful situation (Mallett & Swim, 2005). When heavy women effectively changed the situation to meet their needs, they experienced positive interpersonal and intrapersonal outcomes. I also found that African-Americans used self-focused proactive coping more than situation-focused coping or avoidance. Relative to reports made the day of the discriminatory event, when recalling how they typically dealt with racial discrimination, African-Americans under-estimated their use of self-focused strategies and over-estimated their use of situation-focused strategies (Mallett & Swim, 2009). Thus, people may not always be aware of how they cope.
Proactive coping requires that one identify prejudice-related threats. Yet prejudice is often ambiguous, making it difficult to determine what beliefs and behaviors should be considered prejudicial. Some beliefs and behaviors (e.g., traditional gender stereotypes) are more likely to be perceived as sexist than others (e.g., unwanted sexual touching; Swim, Mallett, Russo-Devosa & Stangor, 2005). Failing to define beliefs and behaviors as sexist may perpetuate the existence of sexist beliefs and behaviors and allow people to continue believing they are not sexist. In fact, people who endorse Modern Sexist beliefs are less likely to define sexist language as sexist and are therefore less likely to detect the occurrence of sexist language, and more likely to use sexist language (Swim, Mallett, & Stangor, 2004).
Can altering expectations facilitate positive intergroup contact?
A century of research on prejudice and intergroup relations demonstrates that people typically expect the worst from intergroup contact. People anticipate that they will feel anxious and have negative experiences when interacting with others who are from a different social group. This is true for people who belong to socially devalued or “stigmatized” groups (e.g., race, gender, size) and for people who are not stigmatized. Many times these expectations are confirmed and intergroup contact is more unpleasant than contact with people from similar social groups. However, contact is not always negative. One aim of my research is to identify factors that form a foundation for intergroup friendship.
In research supported by a grant from the Russell Sage Foundation, I investigated the Intergroup Forecasting Error, or the tendency to expect the worst from intergroup interactions even though, many times, they turn out better than anticipated (Mallett, Wilson, & Gilbert, 2008). When randomly assigned to predict how future interactions with members of different social groups would proceed, participants imagined a more negative encounter than was actually experienced by a separate group who were asked to report how intergroup interactions actually went. Expectations were more negative than actual experiences because people overestimated stress and underestimated similarities they would discover during the interaction. Simply encouraging non-stigmatized people to consider mundane similarities with their interaction partner changed their expectations to match their positive experiences.
Even if an intergroup interaction goes better than expected it can still produce anxiety, which reduces willingness to engage in future contact. Allport (1954) argued that intergroup contact which creates “friendship potential” is one of our best hopes for reducing prejudice and discrimination. Accordingly, I tested whether an intervention that increased people’s expectations about the pleasantness of an interracial interaction would make an actual interaction more pleasant and less cognitively draining (Mallett & Wilson, 2010). I found that a relatively simple intervention increased the positivity of White college students’ interactions with a Black student they had never met and dramatically increased the number of interracial friendships they formed in the ensuing weeks. As a result of this work, APA’s publishing division invited me to compile an edited volume entitled Moving Beyond Prejudice Reduction: Pathways to Positive Intergroup Relations (Tropp & Mallett, 2011).
Why do people with privilege engage in collective action on behalf of a disadvantaged outgroup?
Much research has investigated what motivates stigmatized group members to engage in collective action to change the status quo. Little research tells us what motivates non-stigmatized group members to act on behalf of an outgroup (Mallett, Sinclair, & Huntsinger, 2005). Perspective taking and group-based guilt may prompt non-stigmatized group members to use their privilege and act in coalition with stigmatized groups to reduce social inequality. I found that perceiving group differences (e.g., Whites are more likely than Blacks to have an economic “safety net”) as examples of inequality, believing that one’s group is responsible for the difference, and perceiving few justifications for the difference predict group-based guilt for Whites, men and women (Mallett & Swim, 2004; 2007).
I then tested whether group-based guilt motivated non-stigmatized individuals to engage in collective action on behalf of an outgroup in the context of actual hate crimes that targeted African American and lesbian, gay and bisexual students on college campuses. Among heterosexual and White students, perspective taking was positively related to actual participation in collective action on behalf of the outgroup. Moreover, White guilt mediated the relation between perspective taking and actual participation in collective action (Mallett, Huntsinger, Sinclair & Swim, 2008).
As a member of the campus community at the time of the hate crimes, I was struck by the variability in reactions to the events. Some people were outraged by the attacks while others did not see them as problematic. Building on the idea that hate crimes that target low-status groups are a way to keep such groups “in their place”, I found that people who are motivated to maintain the current social system perceived little harm from hate crimes that targeted low-status groups and, as a result, opposed policies designed to address hate crimes (Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, 2011). Interestingly, people motivated to maintain the current social system perceived more harm when hate crimes targeted high-status groups.
Can we nudge people toward environmentally conscious behavior?
I also investigate factors that promote social change via altering personal behavior or engaging in collective action. Some of this research concerns promoting environmentally conscious behavior. I find that eco-guilt mediates the relation between personal standards about environmental behavior and both public and private efforts to protect the environment (Mallett, 2012). Additionally, I find that self-confrontation via carbon footprint feedback about the impact of one’s behavior on the environment increases eco-guilt when people learn that they, or a group to which they belong, create more carbon emissions than their peers. Eco-guilt then partially mediates the association between carbon footprint feedback and support for a pro-environmental group (Mallett, Melchiori, & Strickroth, 2013).
In collaboration with the Institute for Environmental Sustainability, I conducted an intervention to reduce water consumption in residence halls. Students in residence halls experienced a “water saver” identity-building campaign, received retrofitted fixtures that limited water use, received both, or received neither intervention (Mallett & Melchiori, 2016; Melchiori, Mallett, Durnbaugh, & Pham, 2016). I found that by itself, the identity-building campaign reduced actual water use, but only for those who successfully internalized a water-saver self-identity. In isolation, the identity-building campaign produced as much water conservation as installing retrofits. Thus, internalizing a new conservation self-identity is a previously untapped pathway to promote environmentally-responsible behavior.
In sum, my research tests meaningful social questions about reducing bias and increasing prosocial behavior. I complement my use of survey research with quasi-experimental and experimental interventions, high-impact lab studies, and qualitative coding of videotaped behavior and written material. By approaching the same question from multiple angles, I provide a more complete picture of complex social interactions that are tainted by bias or self-interest. Our modern world ensures that I will have ample inspiration for my work in the foreseeable future.