When allies fail to act

This event is part of a series of Psychology seminars that regularly occurs during the Autumn and Spring terms.

Maja Kutlaca will present some of her ongoing work on allyship focusing on actions of allies that can be problematic.

Challenging sexist behaviours at work can be costly and it is not surprising that many allies fail to act when they need to. This project is done in collaboration with Dr Helena Radke and Dr Maarten van Bezouw.

In four pre-registered experiments (Ntotal  = 1516) with samples from three different countries (Germany, UK and US), we examine public perceptions of those who fail to confront sexism in the workplace. We zoom in on the following three questions to: a) do evaluations of non-confronters of sexism differ depending on whether the context of discrimination is blatant or ambiguous; b) are male allies vs. women who fail to confront sexism perceived more negatively and c) do evaluations of non-confronters depend on the gender identity of the perpetrator.

First, we find that failure to confront sexism is evaluated more negatively when the statement is blatant rather than ambiguous. Second, a male ally failing to confront blatant sexism is disliked more than a woman. Third, the identity of the perpetrator matters: Female perpetrators are evaluated less negatively than male perpetrators.

Consequently, non-confronters are less likely to be penalized if they fail to confront a female rather than a male perpetrator. Additionally, observing silence in the face of blatant prejudice is not without its consequences: Male observers are less likely to confront especially after reading about a silent male ally and more likely to stay away, especially when the perpetrator is female. Implications for sexism confrontation and allyship will be discussed.