Mentor/s
Kathryn M. Kroeper, Dorainne J. Green
Participation Type
Poster
Abstract
Confronting prejudice—directly challenging biased comments and behaviors—is an effective strategy for reducing prejudiced attitudes and instances of stereotyping. However, it remains unclear how people feel about different confrontation styles and which tactics are most comfortable and preferred. In this study, we compared two confrontation styles: “calling-out,” which aims to shame and/or correct the offender, and “calling-in,” which aims to understand and educate the offender. We recruited 400 SHU students (75.5% White, 82.3% women). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of six scenarios (covering ableism, sexism, ethnic bias, ageism, racism/classism, or homophobia), imagining a friend making a biased comment that troubled them. Participants drafted two confrontations in response to the scenario, one each in the call-in and call-out styles, and then compared these confrontations across various dimensions. Results revealed that participants strongly preferred the calling-in style over the calling-out style across all tested prejudice scenarios, considering it more comfortable, empowering, authentic, respectful, and effective. While the results favor calling-in, more research is needed to evaluate its effectiveness in varied situations—such as with blatant prejudice, confronting non-friends, or when the confronter belongs to the targeted group—and to understand how those confronted (vs. those confronting) perceive call-ins versus call-outs.
College and Major available
Psychology BS
Location
Digital Commons & West Campus West Building University Commons
Start Day/Time
4-26-2024 12:00 PM
End Day/Time
4-26-2024 2:00 PM
Creative Commons License
This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-Noncommercial-Share Alike 4.0 License.
Prize Categories
Most Scholarly Impact or Potential, Most Transformative for Social Justice
Calling-In vs. Calling-Out: Style Preferences for Confronting Prejudice
Digital Commons & West Campus West Building University Commons
Confronting prejudice—directly challenging biased comments and behaviors—is an effective strategy for reducing prejudiced attitudes and instances of stereotyping. However, it remains unclear how people feel about different confrontation styles and which tactics are most comfortable and preferred. In this study, we compared two confrontation styles: “calling-out,” which aims to shame and/or correct the offender, and “calling-in,” which aims to understand and educate the offender. We recruited 400 SHU students (75.5% White, 82.3% women). Participants were randomly assigned to read one of six scenarios (covering ableism, sexism, ethnic bias, ageism, racism/classism, or homophobia), imagining a friend making a biased comment that troubled them. Participants drafted two confrontations in response to the scenario, one each in the call-in and call-out styles, and then compared these confrontations across various dimensions. Results revealed that participants strongly preferred the calling-in style over the calling-out style across all tested prejudice scenarios, considering it more comfortable, empowering, authentic, respectful, and effective. While the results favor calling-in, more research is needed to evaluate its effectiveness in varied situations—such as with blatant prejudice, confronting non-friends, or when the confronter belongs to the targeted group—and to understand how those confronted (vs. those confronting) perceive call-ins versus call-outs.
Students' Information
Michele Chu, Psychology, 2026
Nick Granja, Psychology, 2024
Casey Russel, Communications, 2024