Design
Participants read an email exchange where a man (Paul) said something sexist: “No idea, but it’s a leadership position so I doubt very many women will apply. And the women who do apply probably won’t be very strong.” And then another man (Jeff) responded.
Manipulations
| Manipulation | Text |
|---|---|
| Uncivil (retinciv2) | Shut up, Paul. No one wants to hear what you have to say. |
| Neutral (nonresponse) | Keep me updated |
| Civil (civil) | Please don’t say that, Paul. |
Items
status
| Item label | Item text | - 3 | 0 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| j_posstat1 | After his response back to Paul, I think Jeff is worthy of…: | -3. A lot of disrespect | 0. Neither disrespect nor respect | 3. A lot of respect |
| j_posstat2 | After his response back to Paul, I hold Jeff… | -3. In very low regard | 0. In neither low regard nor high regard | 3. In very high regard |
| j_posstat3 | After his response back to Paul, in terms of being like Jeff…: | -3. I want to be very different from him | -3. A lot of disrespect | 0. I don’t want to be like him, or different from him |
rewards
Do you think that Jeff should experience any of the following changes after his response to Paul?
| Item label | Item text | - 3 | 0 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| j_reward1 | change in his salary: | -3. should definitely be decreased | 0. would keep the same | 3. should definitely be increased |
| j_reward2 | change in his job rank: | -3. should definitely be demoted | 0. would keep the same | 3. should definitely be promoted |
| j_reward3 | change in visibility of his project assignments: | -3. Should be assigned to projects with very low visibility | 0. Should remain on projects with the same visibility as before | 3. Should be assigned to projects with high visibility |
| j_reward4 | change in his public recognition: | -3. Should definitely be decreased | 0. Should be kept the same | 3. Should definitely be increased |
socrewards
Do you think that Jeff should experience any of the following changes after his response to Paul?
| Item label | Item text | - 3 | 0 | 3 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| j_socreward1 | at the next work event: | -3. I would avoid Jeff | 0. I would neither avoid nor approach Jeff | 3. I would approach Jeff |
| j_socreward2 | how much closer did you feel to Jeff?: | -3. I felt much more distant from him | 0. The amount of closeness I felt towards him did not change | 3. I felt much closer to him |
| j_socreward3 | how would the amount of time that you want to spend with Jeff change?: | -3. I would want to spend much less time with him | 0. I would not want to change the amount of time I spend with him | 3. I would want to spend much more time with him |
auth
When Jeff responded to Paul, did you think that Jeff was… (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much so)
- acting authentically?
- acting true to himself?
agency
When Jeff responded to Paul, did you think that Jeff was… (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much so)
- confident
- skillful
- competitive
- powerful
- capable
- agentic
comm
When Jeff responded to Paul, did you think that Jeff was… (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much so)
- warm
- good natured
- friendly
- considerate
- caring
- understanding
deter/learn uncivil
When Jeff responded to Paul, did you think that Paul… (1 = not at all, 4 = somewhat, 7 = very much so)
- learnuncivil1: would be uncivil in the future?
- learnuncivil2: feel intimidated?
- learnuncivil3: learned his lesson?
Results
Rudeness evaluations
I asked participants the extent to which they saw the instigator’s comment as rude, and the respondent’s comment as rude (even though I didn’t tell them the exact language of the comment)
Respondent rudeness
Means of RESPONDENT rudeness across conditions
Comparing within context, but between response types
Comparing between contexts, but within response types
Instigator
Means of instigator rudeness across conditions
Comparing within context, but between response types
Comparing between contexts, but within response types
Analyses
Across all conditions
Correlations
Means
Effect sizes and differences
Graphs
## $status
##
## $rewards
##
## $socialrewards
##
## $auth
##
## $agency
##
## $comm
##
## $deter
Within prejudice condition
Controlling for instigator’s rudeness
Effect sizes and differences
Graphs
## $auth_1
##
## $auth_2
##
## $agency_1
##
## $agency_2
##
## $agency_3
##
## $agency_4
##
## $agency_5
##
## $agency_6
##
## $comm_1
##
## $comm_2
##
## $comm_3
##
## $comm_4
##
## $comm_5
##
## $comm_6
##
## $status
##
## $rewards
##
## $socialrewards
##
## $auth
##
## $agency
##
## $comm
##
## $deter
##
## $learn_1
##
## $learn_2
##
## $learn_3
Interaction
Effect sizes and differences
Graphs
## $status
##
## $rewards
##
## $socialrewards
##
## $auth
##
## $agency
##
## $comm
##
## $deter
Exploratory
Response
Would you respond to Jeff’s email? If so, what would you say? (0 = No, 1 = Yes)
## , , response = 0
##
## instigation_type
## manipulation_label prejudice traditional
## Uncivil 0 26 37
## NonResponse 0 41 32
## Civil 0 30 38
##
## , , response = 1
##
## instigation_type
## manipulation_label prejudice traditional
## Uncivil 0 14 19
## NonResponse 0 14 7
## Civil 0 20 9##
## Call:
## glm(formula = response ~ manipulation_label * instigation_type,
## family = "binomial", data = uncivilpilot2_clean)
##
## Coefficients:
## Estimate Std. Error z value Pr(>|z|)
## (Intercept) -0.6190 0.3315 -1.87 0.062 .
## manipulation_labelNonResponse -0.4555 0.4536 -1.00 0.315
## manipulation_labelCivil 0.2136 0.4396 0.49 0.627
## instigation_typetraditional -0.0474 0.4354 -0.11 0.913
## manipulation_labelNonResponse:instigation_typetraditional -0.3979 0.6778 -0.59 0.557
## manipulation_labelCivil:instigation_typetraditional -0.9875 0.6406 -1.54 0.123
## ---
## Signif. codes: 0 '***' 0.001 '**' 0.01 '*' 0.05 '.' 0.1 ' ' 1
##
## (Dispersion parameter for binomial family taken to be 1)
##
## Null deviance: 345.22 on 286 degrees of freedom
## Residual deviance: 335.86 on 281 degrees of freedom
## (292 observations deleted due to missingness)
## AIC: 347.9
##
## Number of Fisher Scoring iterations: 4For those who did respond, how did they rate their response?
Means
Effect sizes and differences
Controls
Controlling for rudeness, response, age
Reference for uncivil factor: Uncivil; reference for context: prejudice