当前位置: X-MOL 学术British Journal of Social Psychology › 论文详情
Our official English website, www.x-mol.net, welcomes your feedback! (Note: you will need to create a separate account there.)
'calling-out' vs. 'calling-in' prejudice: Confrontation style affects inferred motive and expected outcomes.
British Journal of Social Psychology ( IF 3.2 ) Pub Date : 2020-07-07 , DOI: 10.1111/bjso.12405
Freya A Woods 1 , Janet B Ruscher 1
Affiliation  

Laypersons differentiate between two confrontations styles, varying in communication style, perceived motive, and typical context: call‐outs (typically public, non‐accommodating language, and self‐promoting confronter) and call‐ins (typically private, accommodating language, and education‐focused confronter). Popular press espouses a general preference for call‐ins relative to call‐outs, but no empirical work has addressed perceptions of these confrontation styles. To investigate the presumed efficacy of these styles, we modelled communicative differences with Communication Accommodation Theory (CAT), which explores the strategies individuals use to modulate communicative differences with interaction partners. The present studies examined third‐party perceptions of confronter motive and likely outcomes between call‐in and call‐out styles (Study 1) and between typical private and atypical public styles (Study 2) about an anti‐Black comment. We examined responses of participants who imagined themselves taking part in public vs. private call‐in and call‐out confrontations (Study 3). Results showed that these styles are seen as similarly effective in terms of target compliance and internalization, but as operating through different mechanisms. Specifically, call‐in styles facilitated positive inferences of motive, which fostered expectations of positive confrontation outcomes. Additionally, the effects of communication style superseded the impact of context. Results have implications for strategies allies can use to facilitate effective, educational confrontations of prejudice.

中文翻译:

“呼出”与“呼入”偏见:对抗方式影响推断的动机和预期结果。

外行区分两种对抗风格,在交流方式、感知动机和典型背景方面各不相同:呼唤(通常是公开的、不适应的语言和自我推销的对抗者)和呼唤(通常是私人的、适应的语言和教育) -专注的对抗者)。大众媒体普遍支持呼入而不是呼出,但没有实证研究解决了对这些对抗风格的看法。为了研究这些风格的假定功效,我们用沟通调节理论 (CAT) 模拟了沟通差异,该理论探索了个人用来调节与互动伙伴的沟通差异的策略。目前的研究检查了第三方对对抗动机的看法,以及关于反黑人评论的呼入和呼出风格(研究 1)以及典型的私人和非典型公共风格(研究 2)之间的可能结果。我们检查了想象自己参与了公共与私人呼入和呼出对抗的参与者的反应(研究 3)。结果表明,这些风格在目标遵守和内化方面被视为同样有效,但通过不同的机制运作。具体而言,呼唤方式促进了动机的积极推断,从而促进了对积极对抗结果的期望。此外,沟通风格的影响取代了上下文的影响。结果对盟友可以用来促进有效、
更新日期:2020-07-07
down
wechat
bug