Responding to Gender-Based Rejection

Positive Versus Negative Intergroup Differentiation From the Targets’ Perspective

Discriminatory experiences differ in the extent to which the discrimination is blatant or subtle. Independently of this distinction in terms of degree of clarity of group-based rejection, intergroup differentiation can either take place with respect to the allocation of positive traits or outcomes, or by the assignment of negative traits and outcomes to members of particular groups. Members of advantaged groups who assign more negative traits to members of a disadvantaged group than to the in-group engage in negative differentiation. By contrast, those who assert in-group superiority by assigning relatively more positive traits to the in-group engage in positive differentiation.

Research has shown that group-based treatment involving negative differentiation, such as reference to supposedly deficient traits, skills, or abilities of the disadvantaged group (e.g., “women do not have what it takes to be a good leader”) raises threat, anger, and protest, as targets object against the negative treatment received (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Cihangir, Barreto & Ellemers, 2010; Ellemers & Barreto, 2009). However, research on how targets respond to discrimination has so far not examined what happens when group-based treatment is rooted in positive differentiation, that is, in the association of superior traits and features with the advantaged group (positive differentiation; e.g., “men are natural leaders”). We argue that this will elicit fundamentally different responses in targets. Negative differentiation clearly communicates the inferiority of the discriminated group, implying also the stability of these differences (Schmitt & Branscombe, 2002), and even the impermeability of group boundaries (Ellemers, Van Knippenberg, De Vries, & Wilke, 1988). Women faced with negative beliefs about the ability of women compared to men are likely to find this highly threatening (Eliezer, Major, & Mendes, 2010; Schneider, Tomaka, & Palacios, 2001; Stroebe, Barreto, & Ellemers, 2010) and tend to display anger and protest (“I object to being treated this way”, Ellemers & Barreto, 2009). By contrast, positive differentiation primarily communicates that a standard is set by the advantaged group but leaves open the possibility that members of the disadvantaged group reach this standard. This might direct members of the disadvantaged group toward efforts to challenge these beliefs (I can do this too!). In other words, positive differentiation provides targets with more room to cope in a positive and constructive way, lowering threat and increasing efforts to disprove prejudicial beliefs (see also Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Singletary & Hebl, 2009).

Although the current rationale regarding different responses to positive and negative intergroup differentiation has not yet been empirically tested, it fits with prior research showing that group members are likely to display more negative reactions to social disadvantage when they feel they have nothing to lose (Scheepers, Spears, Doosje, & Manstead, 2006; Wright, Taylor, & Moghaddam, 1990). When, however, people see ways to improve their position without disrupting the system, they are likely to prefer such responses (see Wright et al.’s 1990 distinction between normative and nonnormative collective action). We think that a similar process takes place when intergroup differentiation is negative versus positive: when it is positive, members of disadvantaged groups see a way to contest the negative treatment while “playing the rules,” that is, they can simply try to show that women also have what it takes. However, when differentiation is negative that possibility is less salient, and group members are more inclined to express anger and protest against the discriminatory nature of the situation. Indeed, these different responses are also reminiscent of the distinction between “fighting back” and “enhanced striving” in Allport’s (1954) taxonomy of responses to discrimination.

Overview of the Current Research and Hypotheses

In the current study, we focused on gender-based rejection. Women were rejected by men either for a certain task because “this is a task for men” (positive differentiation), because “this is not a task for women” (negative differentiation), or due to random selection (control condition). Participants then responded to the rejection, through self-reports and behavior, while we measured CV responses indicative of threat versus challenge motivational states.

Our measure of threat versus challenge draws from the biopsychosocial model (BPSM) of Blascovich and colleagues (Blascovich, 2008; Blascovich & Mendes, 2010; Blascovich & Tomaka, 1996). The BPSM describes specific CV markers of the motivational states of threat versus challenge during the so-called motivated performance situations (e.g., a job interview, giving a speech). Task engagement, a prerequisite for motivated performance, is marked by decreased pre-ejection period (PEP, a measure of ventricular contractility). Threat is indicated by relatively high vascular resistance (TPR; a measure of the resistance of the arterioles) and low cardiac output (CO; the amount of blood pumped by the heart in a single minute) leading to a less efficient mobilization and transportation of energy during motivated performance. Challenge, by contrast, is indicated by relatively high CO and low TPR, which enables the efficient mobilization and transportation of energy during motivated performance. Within the BPSM, challenge and threat are conceptualized as the end points of a continuum and are in this sense always relative to each other. In other words, relatively lower CO and higher TPR is indicative of more threat (and less challenge), while relatively higher CO and lower TPR is indicative of more challenge (and less threat).

Although we continuously measured CV responses throughout the experiment, we focus on two moments in particular: (1) immediately following exclusion; (2) when delivering a speech about the exclusion to the perpetrators. The latter moment is of primary importance for the current rationale as it indicates how people respond to different kinds of discrimination. More specifically, we predict relatively more threat (and less challenge) when responding to negative differentiation than to positive differentiation or “random” rejection (control condition) and also relatively less threat (and more challenge) when responding to positive differentiation than to “random” rejection (Hypothesis 1a; see also Mendes, Major, McCoy, & Blascovich, 2008). We also examine responses directly after the rejection in order to control for initial CV reactions to the different types of rejection. Because initial responses to social rejection are relatively undifferentiated and independent of its precise source (Williams, 2007), we expect no differences between conditions on CV responses due to the experience of rejection (Hypothesis 1b).

We also predict that people are more likely to object against the decision by expressing anger and protest when facing negative differentiation than when facing positive differentiation or random rejection (Hypothesis 2a). By contrast, we expect participants to be particularly inclined to disprove the validity of the beliefs that underlie the rejection. They may do this by showing that they also possess the traits that are needed for the job despite being women. We argue this response should be more pronounced after exposure to positive differentiation than after exposure to negative differentiation or random rejection. To examine this, we provided participants with an opportunity to describe themselves in terms of gender stereotypical traits, and expected women to describe themselves in relatively more masculine (and less feminine) terms after positive differentiation than after negative differentiation or random rejection (Hypothesis 2b). Finally, we included a measure of gender identification and predicted—in keeping with previous work—that gender identification would be higher in both intergroup differentiation conditions than in the control condition (Hypothesis 3; Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999; Ellemers & Barreto, 2009). Measuring identification is important to differentiate group-level responses from individual-level responses to discrimination (e.g., individual mobility). This is particularly important to interpret the gender self-stereotyping measure: if disproving classic gender stereotypes as relevant for the task represents a group-level response (women can do this too!), as we propose, a change in the content of social identity (masculine vs. feminine self-stereotyping) should occur even while the strength of social identity (identification) remains relatively high.

Method

Results

Due to technical problems, no video data were recorded for eight participants, and no complete CV data were recorded for six participants. Although these participants were excluded from the physiological and behavioral analyses, their available data were included to the self-report analyses.

Cardiovascular Responses

In line with the standard practice (e.g., Blascovich, Seery, Mugridge, Norris, & Weisbuch, 2004; Mendes et al., 2008), mean values for PEP, CO, and TPR were calculated for the last minute of the baseline and the first minute of the counting task and the speech task. We first confirmed that there were no differences between the conditions on baseline levels of CV responses, which was indeed the case (Fs < 1). We then calculated reactivity scores for the three measures by subtracting mean baseline values from the mean values for the first minute of the counting task and the speech task, respectively. Univariate outliers (defined as values higher than 3.3 SD from the average or p = .001 in a normal distribution) were assigned a value of 1% higher/lower than adjacent nonextreme values (Seery, Blascovich, Weisbuch, & Vick, 2004). Finally, we calculated a single threat–challenge index by converting CO and TPR reactivity scores into z scores. After multiplying the z score for TPR with −1, it was added to the z score of CO; higher values on the resulting index indicate a stronger challenge motivational state, whereas lower values indicate a stronger threat motivational state (Blascovich et al., 2004; Kassam, Koslov, & Mendes, 2009; Seery, Weisbuch, & Blascovich, 2009).

We first established that the two tasks were sufficiently engaging by testing for significant decreases in PEP from baseline levels in the different conditions. Across conditions and tasks, participants displayed decreased PEP (Ms < −14.86), ts < −7.34, ps < .001, which indicates task engagement (a prerequisite for motivated performance), which enables a further interpretation of the CV responses in terms of challenge and threat motivational states (Blascovich et al., 2004; Mendes et al., 2008).

We analyzed the threat–challenge index using a 3 (Condition: Negative Intergroup Differentiation vs. Positive Intergroup Differentiation vs. Control Condition) × 2(Task: Counting vs. Speech) analysis of covariance with repeated measures on the last factor. PEP and baseline levels of the threat–challenge index were added as covariates in order to control for individual differences in task engagement and error variance in difference scores (Blascovich et al., 2004; Seery et al., 2004). The only effect emerging from this analysis was a significant interaction between Condition and Task, F(2, 73) = 3.78, p = .027 (see Figure 1). In line with Hypothesis 1a, participants in the negative differentiation condition showed a stronger tendency toward threat (M = −0.55, standard error of the mean [SEM] = 0.33) than participants in the positive differentiation condition (M = 0.35, SEM = 0.31), F(1, 73) = 4.42, p = .039. Put differently, participants in the positive differentiation condition were relatively more challenged than participants in the negative differentiation condition. Moreover, participants in the negative differentiation condition were marginally significantly more threatened than participants in the control condition (M = 0.20, SEM = 0.32), F(1, 73) = 2.46, p = .10. The control condition did not differ from the positive differentiation condition, F(1, 73) = 0.13, p = .719. In line with Hypothesis 1b, there were no differences between conditions during the counting task. That is, participants in the positive differentiation condition (M = −0.07, SEM = 0.31) did not differ significantly from participants in the control condition (M = 0.14, SEM = 0.30), F(1, 73) = 0.14, p = .709, or participants in the negative differentiation condition (M = −0.14, SEM = 0.29), F(1, 73) = 0.04, p = .842. In addition, the difference between the negative differentiation condition and the control condition was also not significant, F(1, 73) = 0.40, p = .529.

OPEN IN VIEWER

Figure 1.

Threat–challenge index as a function of condition and task.

Discussion

The current research investigated reactions to two different forms of gender discrimination: gender-based discrimination where men were described as more fit for a task (positive intergroup differentiation) versus where women were described as less fit for the same task (negative intergroup differentiation). In line with Hypothesis 1, we found that when having the possibility to confront the perpetrators with their discriminatory behavior, participants in the negative differentiation condition were relatively more threatened (and less challenged) than participants in the positive differentiation condition. Past work in this area showed how threatening and anxiety provoking confrontation is, which is an important reason why targets so rarely confront perpetrators of prejudice (Schneider et al., 2001; Shelton & Stewart, 2004; Swim & Hyers, 1999). Our research shows that confrontation elicits stronger threat under some circumstances than under others. More in particular we showed less threat (and more challenge) when targets focused not on what valued characteristics they are portrayed as not having (negative differentiation), but on what is portrayed as unique to the advantaged group (positive differentiation)—and which targets might feel challenged to demonstrate they too possess. Future research might investigate whether targets that differentially interpret a similar discrimination situation either as indicating advantage for the advantaged group or as indicating disadvantage for the disadvantaged group reveal responses similar to those displayed by our participants.

In line with Hypothesis 2, we also found that participants exposed to negative differentiation tended to object against the negative treatment by expressing anger and protest, while participants exposed to positive differentiation tended to disprove the validity of the negative treatment through their self-descriptions. Indeed, the pattern of results for the self-stereotyping measure was in line with our theoretical argument that positive differentiation should invite female participants to claim relatively more masculine (and less feminine) traits compared to participants in the negative differentiation and control condition. These findings confirm that disagreement with a social system can be expressed both by objecting against the treatment suffered (through anger and protest) and, more subtly, by disproving the validity of the rationale underlying this treatment (by demonstrating the inappropriateness of gender stereotypes). Participants who had the chance to meet the standard set by men, without entering the struggle to question this standard, used their self-descriptions to express disagreement with the gender differentiation made (see also Barreto, Spears, Ellemers, & Shahinper, 2003). Those that did not have this opportunity were more likely to protest.

Importantly, and in line with Hypothesis 3, participants in both discrimination conditions showed equally increased gender identification compared to the control condition. This result is important as it supports the idea that both type of responses observed (objecting and disproving) can be group based. Participants who objected against their treatment did so while identifying with their gender group, and not because they wanted to distance themselves from other women. Likewise, participants who disproved the validity of gender stereotypical thinking changed the content of their social identity by claiming relatively more masculine traits, while at the same time retaining the strength of their social identity, as if they were trying to convey, “as a woman I am perfectly capable of being warm as well as competent.”

Although there was a significant difference between the two differentiation conditions on the threat–challenge index during the speech, we did not find significant differences with the control condition. While there was a tendency for participants in the control condition to be less threatened than participants in the negative differentiation condition, this tendency was actually about as strong to that for the participants in the positive differentiation condition. This may be explained by noting that the control condition, where the two women were “randomly” rejected by the four men, might actually represent a situation of attributional ambiguity, where the women wonder whether gender may have played a role in the rejection. Previous research has demonstrated that members of stigmatized groups respond with challenge to (attributionally ambiguous) the negative feedback from out-group members (Mendes et al., 2008). Indeed, this ambiguity may also explain the greater variance in CV responses we observed in the control condition (4.24), compared to the positive and negative differentiation condition (2.82, and 2.85, respectively), which may have also made it more difficult to show significant differences with the negative differentiation condition.

A final issue that merits discussion concerns the absence of relations between the physiological measures on one hand and the other dependent variables on the other hand. An explanation may be found in the error related to the different measurement methods used to measure CV, cognitive, and behavioral responses, making it more difficult to find relationships between them. However, at a more conceptual level, it is also important to note that the CV responses are markers of challenge and threat motivational states (but do not represent these states themselves). Indeed, the further consequences of these more general motivational states are determined by a complex interplay between cognitive and affective factors (Blascovich, Mendes, Hunter, & Salomon, 1999). Therefore, we maintain that the CV measures of challenge and threat yield important insights regarding the phenomenology of being the target of discrimination as framed in terms of positive or negative differentiation, even when the measures we used to assess this do not directly relate to further responses.

To conclude, this research suggests that not all discriminatory events are experienced in the same way. Indeed, what might appear unimportant semantic differences in how discrimination is conveyed can fundamentally alter targets’ experiences and influence whether they direct their dissatisfaction toward objecting against or disproving discrimination. Prior research has primarily addressed negative differentiation and suggests that people need to be aware of their disadvantage and protest against their treatment in order for things to change. At the same time, there are clear emotional and social costs associated with this route, as awareness of discrimination induces a state of threat, while anger and protest tend to elicit resistance. The present research points toward an alternative way, which is perhaps more conducive to change. If those who question the abilities of members of disadvantaged groups focus on defining the criteria that should be met, instead of making assumptions about group-based deficiencies, this is more likely to elicit relatively stronger challenge and invites attempts to disprove the validity of discriminatory practices. In this way then, the present data offer hope and provide scope for developing constructive ways to combat group-based inequality in society, even if we cannot prevent people from differentiating between groups.