RESUMO
People often disagree about what constitutes sexism, and these disagreements can be both socially and legally consequential. It is unclear, however, why or how people come to different conclusions about whether something or someone is sexist. Previous research on judgments about sexism has focused on the perceiver's gender and attitudes, but neither of these variables identifies comparative standards that people use to determine whether any given behavior (or person) is sexist. Extending Devine and colleagues' values framework (Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991; Plant & Devine, 1998), we argue that, when evaluating others' behavior, perceivers rely on the morally-prescriptive values that guide their own behavior toward women. In a series of 3 studies we demonstrate that (1) people's personal standards for sexism in their own and others' behavior are each related to their values regarding sexism, (2) these values predict how much behavioral evidence people need to infer sexism, and (3) people with stringent, but not lenient, value-based standards get angry and try to regulate a sexist perpetrator's behavior to reduce sexism. Furthermore, these personal values are related to all outcomes in the present work above and beyond other person characteristics previously used to predict sexism inferences. We discuss the implications of differing value-based standards for explaining and reconciling disputes over what constitutes sexist behavior.
RESUMO
The prejudice habit-breaking intervention (Devine et al., 2012) and its offshoots (e.g., Carnes et al., 2012) have shown promise in effecting long-term change in key outcomes related to intergroup bias, including increases in awareness, concern about discrimination, and, in one study, long-term decreases in implicit bias. This intervention is based on the premise that unintentional bias is like a habit that can be broken with sufficient motivation, awareness, and effort. We conducted replication of the original habit-breaking intervention experiment in a sample more than three times the size of the original (N = 292). We also measured all outcomes every other day for 14 days and measured potential mechanisms for the intervention's effects. Consistent with previous results, the habit-breaking intervention produced a change in concern that endured two weeks post-intervention. These effects were associated with increased sensitivity to the biases of others and an increased tendency to label biases as wrong. Contrasting with the original work, both control and intervention participants decreased in implicit bias, and the effects of the habit-breaking intervention on awareness declined in the second week of the study. In a subsample recruited two years later, intervention participants were more likely than control participants to object on a public online forum to an essay endorsing racial stereotyping. Our results suggest that the habit-breaking intervention produces enduring changes in peoples' knowledge of and beliefs about race-related issues, and we argue that these changes are even more important for promoting long-term behavioral change than are changes in implicit bias.
