TARGETS' DIFFERENT CONFRONTATION GOALS

Running head: TARGETS’ DIFFERENT CONFRONTATION GOALS 1

Standing up for Whom? Targets’ Different Goals in the Confrontation of Discrimination

Anja K. Mundera, Julia C. Beckerb, Oliver Christa

a: FernUniversität in Hagen (University of Hagen), Universitätsstr. 47, 58097 Hagen, Germany

b: University of Osnabrück, Neuer Graben, 49074 Osnabrück, Germany

Corresponding author: Anja K. Munder ([email protected])

Accepted for publication at the European Journal of Social Psychology (21. June 2020).

https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2698

TARGETS’ DIFFERENT CONFRONTATION GOALS 2

Conflict of Interest Statement

The authors have no conflict of interest to declare

Ethics Statement

All studies presented in this paper were conducted in full accordance with the ethical guidelines

of the Deutsche Gesellschaft für Psychologie (German Society for Psychology). All participants

gave their informed consent prior to their inclusion in the study.

Transparency Statement

All data, materials, preregistrations, and analyses have been made available on the Open Science

Framework’s website at https://osf.io/wffas/.


Abstract

We challenge the common interpretation of targets’ immediate confrontation in reaction to

discrimination as self-serving behavior and propose different underlying motivations for this

phenomenon. In five online scenario studies (Noverall = 1,447), we demonstrate across different

samples and contexts that targets indicate a distinct pursuit of the following self-reported

confrontation goals: individual-benefit (e.g., perpetrator apologizes); group-benefit (e.g., prejudice

reduction); and distancing (e.g., demonstrating that one is different from typical group members).

Furthermore, meaningful associations of the pursuits of individual-benefitting goals and group-

benefitting goals with group identification, disidentification, and further collective action

intentions indicate that they represent different confrontation motivations: Individual-benefitting

confrontation serves to cope with the individual mistreatment of discrimination, whereas group-

benefitting confrontation represents a form of collective action. Distancing goals were associated

with disidentification and—unexpectedly—group identification. Our results show that the

phenomenon of confrontation in reaction to discrimination can be the result of different underlying

psychological processes.

Keywords: confrontation; collective action; distancing; discrimination; goals; motivation


Standing up for Whom? Targets’ Different Goals in the Confrontation of Discrimination

Discrimination is defined as a disadvantageous treatment of an individual because of their

membership of a certain social group (Dovidio, Hewstone, Glick, & Esses, 2010). For example, a

female professional finds out that her (equally skilled and equally productive) male colleague

received a pay raise—but she did not. She talks to her supervisor about this, but he denies her the

raise. He also makes it clear that he thinks that women in general do not have the same abilities

as men and therefore do not deserve to make as much money as them. People differ in their

reactions to experienced discrimination. One possible behavioral reaction to discrimination is

confrontation—which we define in this context as the phenomenon of the target’s immediate

face-to-face verbal objection towards the perpetrator and their prejudicial treatment (Barreto &

Ellemers, 2015). Imagine the aforementioned professional confronts her supervisor by opposing

him and his prejudicial treatment of her. Crucially for the present research, just observing this

reaction does not tell us anything about her motives: Maybe she is standing up for herself and

wants him to apologize to her or give her the promotion after all. It is also possible that she is

standing up for all women and wants men not to be prejudiced against women any more. Or

maybe she just does not want to be labeled as a woman and wants to make clear that she is

different from other women. We propose that targets’ confrontation of discrimination can be

directed at distinct goals, can therefore be elicited by different motivations, and needs to be

conceptualized as the manifestation of distinct psychological processes (Becker & Barreto, 2019).

Individual Motivation for Targets’ Confrontation of Discrimination

The majority of previous research on interpersonal confrontation has viewed this behavior

from an individual coping perspective (Barreto & Ellemers, 2015; Kaiser & Miller, 2004) and

examined motivational factors at the individual level. For example, this research line has


discussed individual-level factors that promote or inhibit confrontation, such as attributional

processes (e.g., Ashburn-Nardo, Morris, & Goodwin, 2008; Major, Quinton, & Schmader, 2003)

or the anticipation of social costs for the confronter (e.g., Kaiser & Miller, 2001; Shelton &

Steward, 2004; Woodzicka & LaFrance, 2001). Accordingly, most of the confrontation literature

assumes that targets’ confrontation of discrimination is driven by self-serving motivation (as

discussed by Becker, Barreto, Kahn, & de Oliveira Laux, 2015). This interpretation implies that

targets’ motives for confrontation are only grounded on the individual-level mistreatment and

their confrontation is directed at improving the target’s individual circumstances (Kowalski,

1996).

However, a target’s experience of discrimination also entails group-level outcomes, such

as being categorized and affected as a member of a devalued group (Stroebe, Ellemers, Barreto,

& Mummendey, 2009). Previous research has illustrated that differentiating between individual-

and group-level outcomes of stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination provides a more thorough

understanding of people’s reactions to them: For example, stereotype threat directed at a person’s

group is qualitatively different from stereotype threat directed at the individual self and hence

elicits different coping processes (Shapiro, 2011; Shapiro & Neuberg, 2007). Furthermore, there

is a well-established understanding of how people cope with categorization and the devaluation

of their group (e.g., Branscombe, Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 1999; Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Specifically, people react to these types of experiences by defending the group as a whole (Van

Zomeren, Postmes, & Spears, 2008) or (psychologically) leaving the group (self-group

distancing; Derks, van Laar, Ellemers, & Raghoe, 2015), depending primarily on the individual

importance of the group membership (Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Therefore, we extend previous

conceptions of confrontation motivation and propose that targets use interpersonal confrontation


not only as a strategy to cope with individual mistreatment but also to defend the group as a

whole as a form of collective action, or distance themselves from the group.

Collective Motivation for Targets’ Confrontation of Discrimination

Previous research defines any behavior by group members aiming to improve the status of

the group as “collective action” (Van Zomeren, 2013). The collective action literature mostly

focuses on protest behaviors (e.g., going to a demonstration or signing a petition) and has hardly

conceptualized confrontation (as an immediate response to discrimination) as a type of collective

action behavior. Only recently has research considered that targets confront discrimination as an

act of collective action as they use collective strategies in confrontation, such as pointing out that

the perpetrator’s behavior is sexist (Becker et al., 2015; Fischer, Becker, Kito, & Nayir, 2017).

Earlier findings also suggest that group interest could play a role in motivating confrontation

(qualitative data on confrontation goals, Hyers, 2007; actual prejudice reduction, e.g., Chaney &

Sanchez, 2018; Czopp & Monteith, 2003; anticipation of prejudice reduction is positively

associated with the likelihood of confrontation, Kaiser & Miller, 2004). Most conclusively,

identification with women, salience of gender identity, and identification as a feminist predicted

women’s confrontation (e.g., Leaper & Arias, 2011; Major et al., 2003; Wang & Dovidio, 2017),

which resonates with findings that strongly identified group members are more likely to pursue

collective action (Ellemers, Spears, & Doosje, 2002; Van Zomeren, 2013), especially when the

identity is politicized (Simon et al., 1998).

Distancing Motivation for Targets’ Confrontation of Discrimination

A different line of research has demonstrated how some group members might cope with

the devaluation of the group by distancing themselves from the respective group instead (e.g.,

Derks, van Laar, & Ellemers, 2016; Ellemers, 2001). Discrimination involves the categorization

of an individual as a member of a social group. Previous research has demonstrated that this


categorization can lead to a threat experience (Branscombe et al., 1999) for individuals who do

not identify with this particular group (i.e., the group membership does not have any meaning for

the individual’s self-concept) or who are disidentified from the group (i.e., the group membership

has an explicitly negative meaning for the individual’s self-concept; Becker & Tausch, 2014).

Low-identified and disidentified individuals might use confrontation to distance themselves from

the group. In doing so, they resist this inappropriate categorization to cope with the associated

threat (Barreto, Ellemers, Scholten, & Smith, 2010) and/or express their disidentification.

Previous research has demonstrated that detachment from a group can even lead to behavior that

actively harms this group (Becker & Tausch, 2014). Therefore, such motivated confrontation

would disregard group interests—or possibly even compromise them.

Disentangling Different Motivations Through Confrontation Goals

Disentangling these distinct motivational paths to confrontation provides a more nuanced

understanding of confrontation as well as the psychological and contextual factors affecting it.

Prior research has discussed this distinction of different social identity-related confrontation

motives and strategies (Becker & Barreto, 2019; Becker et al., 2015; Fischer et al., 2017). To the

best of our knowledge, this research is the first to empirically distinguish these different

motivations for confrontation from each other and systematically operationalize them as

underlying confrontation goals (improving the individual’s situation regardless of the group;

improving group status; distancing oneself from the group). For this purpose, we developed an

explicit self-report measure of confrontation goals that allows an operationalization of different

motivational paths independently from observable confrontation strategies, such as the content of

the verbal expression (Sweetman, Leach, Spears, Pratto, & Saab, 2013). A stronger pursuit of

specific confrontation goals thereby indicates a stronger activation of the respective processes. In

this article, we focus on demonstrating two key points: First, targets’ (self-reported) goals of an


imagined confrontation of a specific discriminatory act can be empirically distinguished into the

three described goals. Second, the pursuits of these distinct goals have different theoretically

meaningful associations with group identification, disidentification, and further collective action

intentions, indicating that the self-reported pursuits of these goals validly represent the proposed

motivational processes.

Associations of Confrontation Goal Pursuits with Other Constructs

Specifically, we first argue that the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals indicates that

people use confrontation as a strategy to cope with the individual mistreatment without

considering the group’s devaluation. This entirely individual coping should be independent from

constructs that relate to the group (membership). Therefore, we expected that the pursuit of

individual-benefitting goals does not share unique variance with group-related measures; more

precisely, it is not associated with group identification, disidentification, or further collective

action intentions after controlling for the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals. This

statistical control is necessary to account for shared variance between the pursuit of individual-

benefitting goals and group-related constructs that only occurs due to an overlap between the

potentially simultaneously operating “coping with individual mistreatment” and “coping with

group devaluation” processes: The pursuit of individual-benefitting goals is therefore compatible

with either the pursuit of group-benefitting or the pursuit of distancing goals. We thus also

expected that the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals is positively associated with the pursuits

of group-benefitting and distancing goals, respectively.

Second, we argue that the pursuit of group-benefitting goals indicates that people use

confrontation as a strategy to cope with the devaluation of the group as a form of collective

action. Therefore, we expected that the pursuit of group-benefitting goals is positively associated

with group identification (importance of group membership is associated with behavior in favor


of the group; Ellemers et al., 2002), but not associated with disidentification (as they represent

different motivational states; Becker & Tausch, 2014). Furthermore, we hypothesized that pursuit

of group-benefitting goals (as a form of collective action) is positively associated with further

collective action intentions that relate to different behaviors (e.g., signing a petition).

Finally, we argue that the pursuit of distancing goals indicates that people use

confrontation as a strategy to cope with the devaluation of the group as a distancing strategy.

Therefore, we expected that it is positively associated with disidentification (negative meaning of

a group membership is associated with negative in-group-directed behavior; Becker & Tausch,

2014), but not associated with group identification. As psychologically leaving a group reduces

the likelihood of acting as a psychological group member, we expected a negative association

between the pursuit of distancing goals and further collective action intentions. Furthermore, the

pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing confrontation goals are incompatible as they both

address the devaluation of the group but with contradictory psychological states (acting as group

member versus psychologically leaving the group). Therefore, we expected a negative correlation

between the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals.

[Tables 1-3 to be inserted here]

The Present Research

We conducted two pilot online studies for item development and five preregistered online

scenario studies to further refine and validate the Confrontation Goals Scale. For the five scenario

studies, Table 1 provides an overview of the basic sample and study characteristics, Table 2

shows descriptive results and internal consistencies, and Table 3 presents the zero-order

correlations of the key constructs (goal pursuits, group identification, disidentification, further

collective action intentions). We describe all details of the scale development, factor structure,

and associations with secondary constructs in the supplementary online material (SOM). We


determined our sample sizes before we started data collections and described stopping rules in the

preregistrations. Preregistrations,1 materials, (raw) data sets, R- and Mplus-code to all data

preparation and analyses, as well as R-outputs to the analyses reported in this manuscript are

available at https://osf.io/wffas/?view_only=d8afb522b7f643d7b96b6ef66f1c7ce2.

Pilot Studies

We developed a pool of 36 preliminary items based on the literature on outcomes of

confrontation, collective action, and distancing as well as two online pilot studies: In the first

pilot study (N = 200), we used a critical incident approach (Flanagan, 1954) and asked

participants from different social groups to think about the last incident where they were the

target of social discrimination. Participants described the incidents, reported whether they had

confronted the perpetrator, and what positive and negative outcomes they associated with their

reaction. This approach allowed a broad understanding of potential confrontation goals across

social groups and discrimination incidents. However, this approach can only give insight into

goals that people remember pursuing themselves. These goals might also be subject to recall bias;

for instance, people might remember goals more when they are more important to them or when

they felt like they had achieved the goal. To supplement the data from the first pilot study, we

asked participants in the second pilot study (N = 21 women) to list all potential goals for

discrimination confrontation they could think of, regardless of whether they would pursue them

or not. Based on this data and the relevant literature, we identified potentially relevant thematic

categories for individual-benefitting goals, group-benefitting goals, and distancing goals and

developed an initial item pool and the preliminary version of the Confrontation Goals Scale (36

items; see Table 4).

[Table 4 to be inserted about here]


Study 1

Method

Participants

We recruited n = 418 German-speaking women via the university’s participant pool and

convenience sampling (compensation: course credit or participation in a raffle over 10*10 euro).

As preregistered, we excluded n = 17 participants who indicated non-serious participation. The

final sample was N = 401. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 66 years (M = 31.71, SD = 9.53).

Their average years of work experience was M = 8.13 (SD = 9.15, range 0–48). The majority

were current (n = 220, 54.86%) or previous psychology students (n = 23, 5.74%).

Procedure and Measures

Participants read and imagined themselves in a scenario that described an (unambiguous)

incident of gender discrimination at work (adapted from Lindsey et al., 2015):

Imagine that you overhear your co-worker Mr. M. discussing his recent pay raise.

Although you received higher performance evaluations than Mr. M., you did not receive

an increase in pay. You decide to approach your supervisor Mr. S. to ask for a

comparable increase in pay. He refuses, and tells you that, “Women do not deserve to

make as much as men.” You react by opposing Mr. S.

Unless specified otherwise, participants indicated their agreement for all following

measures on a 7-point scale, anchored with “1 − Don’t agree at all” and “7 − Fully agree.” After

reading the scenario, participants completed the preliminary 36-item version of the Confrontation

Goals Scale (Table 4). Instructions for the Confrontation Goals Scale were: “Imagine you just

experienced this situation and opposed Mr. S. In the following, you will find statements that

describe what you might have wanted to achieve with this reaction. Please indicate to what extent

this applies to you.” Participants indicated their agreement with each item. Participants then


completed measures of group identification (subscales group centrality and group solidarity, six

items, e.g., “The fact that I am a woman is an important part of my identity.” ; Leach et al., 2008;

Roth & Mazziotta, 2015), disidentification (ten items, e.g., “I’m unhappy about being a woman.”;

Becker & Tausch, 2014), and further collective action intentions (four items, e.g., “I would

participate in a demonstration to stop the discrimination of women.”; Becker et al., 2015).

Participants indicated whether they would have actually confronted the perpetrator in the given

situation: the majority (76.1%, n = 305) indicated that they would do so confront if they were in

the situation described in the scenario; 21.9% (n = 88) were unsure; and 2% (n = 8) indicated that

they would not.2 Finally, participants could add further goals in an open-ended field (all matched

with one of the previously identified categories).

Results and Discussion

Distinctiveness of Goals

We found first evidence for three interpretable factors in the 36-item preliminary version

of the Confrontation Goals Scale in an exploratory factor analysis (EFA); based on the EFA and

item analysis, we reduced the scale to 25 items and identified two items that needed rewording

(see SOM).

Associations with Key Constructs

Individual-benefitting goals

To test the unique variance between the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals and the

other key construct, we regressed each key construct on all three goal pursuits and examined the

regression coefficient of the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals: As expected, the pursuit of

individual-benefitting goals was not associated with group identification, disidentification, or

further collective action intentions when controlling for the pursuits of group-benefitting and

distancing goals, respectively (ps = .31/.53/.11). As predicted, the pursuit of individual-


benefitting goals was positively associated with the pursuit of group-benefitting goals (r = .35, p

< .001; also when controlling for the pursuit of distancing goals in a multiple regression, β = .35,

t(398) = 7.57, p < .001).3 Against predictions, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was not

associated with the pursuit of distancing goals (p = .11; also when controlling for the pursuit of

group-benefitting goals in a multiple regression, p = .11).

Group-benefitting goals

As predicted, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was positively associated with group

identification (r = .45, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting

and distancing goals in a multiple regression, β = .47, t(397) = 9.88, p < .001). To test whether the

pursuit of group-benefitting goals is not only robustly but also exclusively associated with group

identification, we regressed it on both group identification and disidentification: As expected, the

pursuit of group-benefitting goals was (positively) associated with group identification (β = .45,

t(398) = 10.02, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and

distancing goals, β = .42, t(396) = 9.71, p < .001), but not with disidentification (p = .94; also

when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and distancing goals, p = .42). As

predicted, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was positively associated with further collective

action intentions (r = .53, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-

benefitting and distancing goals in a multiple regression, β = .51, t(397) = 11.36, p < .001).

Distancing goals

As predicted, the pursuit of distancing goals was positively associated with

disidentification (r = .49, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting

and group-benefitting goals in a multiple regression, β = .49, t(397) = 11.20, p < .001). We also

tested whether the pursuit of distancing goals is exclusively associated with disidentification in a

multiple regression: As expected, the pursuit of distancing goals was positively associated with


disidentification (β = .49, t(398) = 11.11, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of

individual-benefitting and distancing goals, β = .49, t(396) = 11.04, p < .001), but not with group

identification (p = .95; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and

distancing goals, p = .58). As expected, the pursuit of distancing goals was negatively associated

with further collective action intentions (r = -.14, p = .004; also when controlling for the pursuits

of individual- and group-benefitting goals in a multiple regression, β = -.16, t(397) = -3.71, p

< .001). Against predictions, the pursuit of distancing goals was not (negatively) associated with

the pursuit of group-benefitting goals (p = .78, also when controlling for the pursuit of individual-

benefitting goals in a multiple regression, p = .77).

In sum, Study 1 provides first evidence that targets’ confrontation of discrimination can be

motivated by distinct confrontation goals: individual-benefitting, group-benefitting, and

distancing goals. Results also indicate that the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals represents

coping with the individual mistreatment regardless of the group (no unique shared variance with

group-related constructs and compatibility with the pursuit of group-benefitting goals) and the

pursuit of group-benefitting goals represents coping with the devaluation of the group as a form

of collective action (indicated by positive associations with group identification and further

collective action intentions). In contrast, results on the pursuit of distancing goals only partially

supported the notion that it represents coping with the group devaluation as a form of self-group

distancing (indicated by a positive association with disidentification and a negative association

with further collective action intentions). Against expectations, there were no associations

between the pursuit of distancing and individual-/group-benefitting goals, respectively. This

might suggest that, for some individuals, the pursuit of distancing goals is compatible with the

pursuits of individual- or group-benefitting goals (positive associations), whereas for others, these

pursuits are incompatible (negative associations). A positive association between the pursuits of


distancing and group-benefitting goals would imply that both motives suggest at least some form

of action against discrimination.

Study 2

We replicated our procedure and analyses in four more studies and changed one aspect per

study to add to the generalizability of our findings (see Table 1). In Study 2, we used a more

diverse sample that was closer to the general German population in terms of age and educational

background instead of a student sample as in Study 1.

Method

Participants

We recruited n = 395 German-speaking women with non-crossed quotas for age and

educational background via a polling agency (respondi; compensation: 2 euro). As preregistered,

we excluded n = 64 participants who failed an attention check (choosing the correct summary of

the scenario). We additionally excluded one participant who indicated that she mixed up the scale

anchors. The final sample was N = 330. Participants’ age ranged from 18 to 69 years (M = 43.65,

SD = 14.10), their highest formal educational background was no degree (n = 13, 3.9%), still in

school (n = 8, 2.4%), basic school qualification (n = 111, 33.6%), polytechnic secondary school

certificate (n = 22, 6.7%), secondary school certificate (n = 75, 22.7%), and specialized or

general A-levels (n = 101, 30.6%).

Participants completed the same procedure4 as in Study 1 with two exceptions: They

completed the improved preliminary version of the Confrontation Goals Scale (25 items; two

items with problematic loadings were reworded, see SOM) and the full scale for group

identification (15 items; Roth & Mazziotta, 2015). Finally, participants indicated whether they

would have confronted the perpetrator: Again, the majority (66.7%, n = 220) indicated that they


would do so if they were in the situation described in the scenario; 28.2% (n = 93) were unsure;

and 5.2% (n = 17) indicated that they would not.5



As preregistered, we ran a confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) for a model with three

intercorrelated factors. The model fit was not acceptable (Χ2 = 1009.27; df = 272; p < .001; CFI

= .78; RMSEA = .09 (90% CI = .09/.10); SRMR = .11; AIC = 28515.95; BIC = 28717.31), albeit

it was better than one- and two-factor models (as predicted, see SOM). However, this

traditionally used modeling restricts cross-loadings to zero as it assumes that all factors are

unidimensional and all items are “pure” indicators for the respective factors. In reality, this ideal

is rarely achieved (Marsh, Lüdtke, Nagengast, Morin, & von Davier, 2013). Marsh et al. (2013)

argue that the violation of these assumptions should not be ignored but rather systematically

evaluated through exploratory structural equation models (ESEMs) that allow estimations of all

factor loadings. The psychometric benefits of using ESEMs have been demonstrated with real

and simulated data (e.g., Booth & Hughes, 2014; Marsh, Liem, Martin, Morin, & Nagengast,

2011; Marsh et al., 2010; Perry, Nicholls, Clough, & Crust, 2015). We therefore conducted an

ESEM with three factors and Geomin rotation (Asparouhov & Muthén, 2009; Marsh, Morin,

Parker, & Kaur, 2014). The fit of this model was acceptable (Χ2 = 588.91; df = 228; p < .001; CFI

= .89; RMSEA = .07 (90% CI = .06/.08); SRMR = .04; AIC = 28233.59; BIC = 28697.08). The

ESEM allowed us to inspect the cross-loadings and draw more informative conclusions about the

data structure: Two items showed substantial cross-loadings and one item did not load

substantially on any factor; all other items loaded substantially on the intended factors (see

SOM).




As expected, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was not associated with group

identification and further collective action intentions when controlling for the pursuits of group-

benefitting and distancing goals, respectively (ps = .10/33). Against expectations, the pursuit of

individual-benefitting goals was (negatively) associated with disidentification when controlling

for the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals (β = -.14, t(326) = -2.20, p = .03). As

expected, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was positively associated with the pursuit of

group-benefitting goals (r = .65, p < .001; also while controlling for the pursuit of distancing

goals, β = .62, t(327) = 14.18, p < .001). Also as expected, the pursuit of individual-benefitting

goals was positively associated with the pursuit of distancing goals (r = .26, p < .001), but not

when controlling for the pursuit of group-benefitting goals (β = .07, t(327) = 1.63, p = .10).



identification (r = .41, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting

and distancing goals, β = .34, t(326) = 5.02, p < .001). As expected, the pursuit of group-

benefitting goals was (positively) associated with group identification (β = .42, t(327) = 7.69, p

< .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and distancing goals, β

= .20, t(325) = 4.29, p < .001), but not with disidentification in a multiple regression (p = .76;

also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and distancing goals , p = .44). As

predicted, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was positively associated with further collective

action intentions (r = .49, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-

benefitting and distancing goals, β = .45, t(326) = 7.05, p < .001).


Distancing goals


disidentification (r = .36, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting

and group-benefitting goals, β = .44, t(326) = 8.55, p < .001). Against expectations, the pursuit of

distancing goals was not only (positively) associated with disidentification (β = .47, t(327) =

8.90, p < .001; also after controlling for the pursuits of individual- and group-benefitting goals, β

= .47, t(325) = 9.32, p < .001) but also (positively) associated with group identification in a

multiple regression (β = .31, t(327) = 3.39, p = .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of

individual- and group-benefitting goals, β = .19, t(325) = 5.89, p < .001). Against expectations,

the pursuit of distancing goals was not negatively (but positively) associated with further

collective action intentions (r = .13, p = .02), or not at all when controlling for the pursuits of

individual- and group-benefitting goals (p = .67). Also against expectations, the pursuit of

distancing goals was positively associated with the pursuit of group-benefitting goals (r = .30, p

< .001; also when controlling for the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals, β = .22, t(327) =

3.24 , p = .001).

Taken together, Study 2 indicates that the result patterns of Study 1 generalize to a more

diverse and representative sample of women: A three-factor ESEM confirmed the structure of

distinct confrontation goals (loading patterns indicated three items needed rewording) and results

suggesting that confrontation with individual-benefitting goals represents coping with the

individual mistreatment, and confrontation with group-benefitting goals represents coping with

the devaluation as a form of collective action mostly replicated. The overall pattern suggesting

that the pursuit of distancing goals might not represent a form of self-group distancing but rather

a motive close to pro-group behavior became even more pronounced (positive associations with


group identification, further collective action intentions, and the pursuit of group-benefitting

goals).

Study 3

In Study 3, we used a different scenario that was set in a more private context (rather than

a work context).

Method

Participants

We recruited and compensated n = 241 German-speaking women as in Study 1. As

preregistered, we excluded n = 6 participants who indicated non-serious participation, n = 11 non-

confronting participants, and n = 2 suspicious participants. We additionally excluded one

participant who indicated in the open comment box at the end of the study that they were a man.

The final sample was N = 221. Participants’ age ranged from 16 to 70 years (M = 31.61, SD =

10.74). The highest formal educational background was no degree (n = 1, 0.5%), basic school

qualification (n = 1, 0.5 %), (polytechnic) secondary school certificate (n = 16, 7.2%), specialized

or general A-levels (n = 83, 37.6%), technical college or university degree (n = 117, 52.9 %), and

PhD (n = 3, 1.4%). The majority indicated that they did not study or had not studied psychology

(n = 123, 55.7%), while 38.0% (n = 84) indicated current or previous (n = 14, 6.3%) studies of

psychology.

Procedure

Study 3 was part of a combined data collection; here, we only report parts that are

relevant to this study: Participants read and imagined themselves in a scenario where a male

employee of a car rental company refused to provide them with a big car due to their gender6;

participants indicated the subjective likelihood of them confronting the employee on a 7-point

scale (anchored “-3: No, absolutely not” and “+3: Yes, definitely,” midpoint “0: Unsure”) rather


than specifying confrontation in the vignette already. We included only participants who indicated

a confrontation likelihood higher than the scale’s midpoint labeled “unsure.” After that,

participants completed the final version of the Confrontation Goals Scale (25 items, see

Appendix; three items with problematic loadings in Study 2 were reworded, see SOM for details)

and the same measures for group identification and disidentification as in Study 2. We did not

measure further collective action intentions in Study 3.



Again, the three-factor ESEM fitted the data acceptably (Χ2 = 389.93; df = 228; p < .001;

CFI = .93; RMSEA = .06 (90% CI = .05/.07); SRMR = .04; AIC = 19481.69; BIC = 19896.27).

The items’ loadings on the intended factors were all substantial while the cross-loadings were not.

The three-factor CFA model showed only a mediocre fit with the data (Χ2 = 539.37; df = 272; p

< .001; CFI = .88; RMSEA = .07 (90% CI = .06/.08); SRMR = .08; AIC = 19493.13; BIC =

19673.23), which was still better than the one- and two-factor CFA models (see SOM).



As predicted, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was not associated with group

identification or disidentification when controlling for other goal pursuits, respectively (ps

= .15/.09). As expected, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was positively associated with

the pursuit of group-benefitting goals (r = .38, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuit of

distancing goals, β = .33, t(218) =5.12, p < .001) and distancing goals, respectively (r = .29, p

< .001; also when controlling for the pursuit of group-benefitting goals, β = .20, t(218) = 3.22, p

= .001).




identification (r = .32, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .26, t(217) =

3.67, p < .001). As expected, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was (positively) associated

with group identification (β = .34, t(218) = 5.03, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal

pursuits, β = .21, t(216) = 3.14, p = .002), but not with disidentification in a multiple regression

(p = .34; also when controlling for other goal pursuits, p = .52).

Distancing goals


disidentification (r = .20, p = .003; also when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .20, t(217) =

2.83, p = .01). Against expectation, the pursuit of distancing goals was not only (positively)

associated with disidentification (β = .28, t(218) = 4.17, p < .001; also when controlling for other

goal pursuits, β = .24, t(216) = 3.52, p = .001) but also (positively) associated with group

identification in a multiple regression (β = .27, t(218) = 4.09, p < .001; also when controlling for

other goal pursuits, β = .17, t(216) = 2.44, p = .02). Also unexpectedly, the pursuit of distancing

goals was positively associated with the pursuit of group-benefitting goals (r = .27, p < .001; also

when controlling for the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals, β = .19, t(218) = 2.71 , p = .01).

Results from Study 3 overall indicate that the goal structure and correlational patterns are

not specific to the work context but also replicate in a private context: The three-factor ESEM

showed main- and cross-loadings fully to our expectations and thus confirmed the final version of

the Confrontation Goals Scale. For the third time, the pattern of expected and unexpected

associations indicates that the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals represents individual coping

regardless of the group, that the pursuit of group-benefitting goals represents a form of collective


action, and that the pursuit of distancing goals does not fully represent a form of self-group

distancing.

Study 4

In Study 4, we adapted the workplace discrimination scenario to ageism instead of sexism

and thus used “people over the age of 50 years” as a different social group rather than women.

Method

Participants

We recruited n = 260 German-speaking participants over the age of 50 via convenience

sampling (no compensation). We excluded n = 51 participants, as preregistered (non-serious

participation, non-confronters, possible participation in Studies 1–3). Additionally, we excluded

one suspicious participant and one participant because of faulty data due to a technical error. The

final sample was N = 207. Participants’ age ranged between 50 and 84 years (M = 57.95, SD =

6.47); participants identified predominantly as female (n = 160, 77.29%), n = 46 (22.22%)

identified as male, and n = 1 (< 1%) identified as another gender. The highest formal educational

background was basic school qualification (n = 5, 2.42%), general certificate of secondary

education (n = 34, 16.43%), specialized or general A-levels (n = 49, 23.67%), technical college or

university degree (n = 113, 54.59 %), and other (n = 6, 2.90%). Their current (main) occupations

were: student (n = 19, 9.18%); employee (n = 98, 47.34%); self-employed (n = 23, 11.11%);

between jobs (n = 6, 2.90%), homemaker (n = 17, 8.21%); stay at home parent (n = 1, 48.01%);

and other (n = 43, 20.77%). The majority indicated that they did not study or had not studied

psychology (n = 144, 69.57%), while 21.26% (n = 44) indicated current or previous (n = 19,

9.18%) studies in psychology.

Participants followed the same procedure as in Study 3, with all materials and scales

adapted to the context of ageism and the social group of people over the age of 50 years7


(exceptions: group identification was measured with three items by Armenta, Stroebe, Scheibe,

Postmes, & van Yperen, 2017, and we measured further collective action intentions as in Study

2).



The three-factor ESEM showed an acceptable fit with the data (Χ2 = 398.50; df = 228; p


19272.49); with the exception of two items, the items loaded substantially only on the intended

factors (see SOM). Again, the three-factor CFA model did not fit the data well (Χ2 = 599.48; df =

272; p < .001; CFI = .86; RMSEA = .08 (90% CI = .07/.09); SRMR = .09; AIC = 18928.89; BIC

= 19105.52), albeit it was better than one- and two-factor CFA models (see SOM).



As predicted, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was not associated with group

identification, disidentification, or further collective action intentions when controlling for other

goal pursuits, respectively (ps = .06/.71/.22). As expected, the pursuit of individual-benefitting

goals was positively associated with both group-benefitting (r = .53, p < .001; also when

controlling for the pursuits of distancing goals, β = .46, t(204) = 7.60, p < .001) and distancing

goals, respectively (r = .34, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuits of group-benefitting

goals, β = .20, t(204) = 3.27, p = .001).






with group identification (when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .40, t(202) = 7.04, p

< .001), but with disidentification in a multiple regression (when controlling for other goal

pursuits, p = .18). As predicted, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was positively associated

with further collective action intentions (r = .61, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal

pursuits, β = .61, t(203) = 9.24, p < .001).

Distancing goals


disidentification (r = .38, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .37, t(203) =

5.29, p < .001). As expected, the pursuit of distancing goals was (positively) associated with

disidentification (when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .32, t(202) = 5.16, p < .001), but

not with group identification in a multiple regression (when controlling for other goal pursuits, p

= .66). As expected, the pursuit of distancing goals was negatively associated with further

collective action intentions when controlling for other goal pursuits (β = -.12, t(203) = - 2.07, p

= .04). Against expectations, the pursuit of distancing goals was positively associated with group-

benefitting goals (r = .31, p < .001; also when controlling for the pursuit of individual-benefitting

goals, β = .18, t(204) = 2.35, p = .02).

In sum, results of Study 4 indicate that the proposed confrontation goals also generalize to

other social groups (here: people over the age of 50 years), supporting our approach from a

general Social Identity Theory framework (Tajfel & Turner, 1979): The three-factor ESEM

showed main- and cross-loadings mostly in line with our expectations (except for two substantial

cross-loadings that indicated that some items might not fully translate into every context) and

correlational results replicated patterns from Studies 1−3.


Study 5

Finally, we used the workplace scenario in an English-speaking US-American sample

instead of a German(-speaking) sample.

Method

Participants

We recruited n = 327 English-speaking women currently residing in the USA via Prolific

(compensation: 1.10 GBP; average hourly rate: 9.24 GBP). As preregistered, we excluded n = 12

non-confronting participants, n = 12 participants who failed an attention check, n = 14 suspicious

participants, and n = 2 participants who indicated that they partly mixed up the scale anchors

(please note: some criteria overlapped). The final sample was N = 288. Participants’ age ranged

from 18 to 72 years (M = 35.29, SD = 12.51), their highest formal educational background was

some high school, no diploma (n = 2, 1%), high school graduate, diploma or the equivalent (n =

31, 11%), some college credit, no degree (n = 71, 25%), trade/technical/vocational training (n =

4, 1%), associate degree (n = 36, 13%), Bachelor’s degree (n = 104, 36%), Master’s degree (n =

35, 12%), professional degree (n = 1, 0.3%), or doctorate degree (n = 4, 1%). Most identified as

White (n = 225, 78%), followed by Black or African American (n = 18, 6%), Hispanic or Latina

(n = 14, 5%), Asian / Pacific Islander (n = 19, 7%), Native American or American Indian (n = 2,

1%), or Other (n = 10, 3%).

Participants completed the same procedure as in Study 3 with all materials in English (see

SOM for details on translation of the Confrontation Goals Scale) and a measure of further

collective action intentions as in Study 2.




A three-factor ESEM showed only a mediocre fit with the data (Χ2 = 671.43; df = 228; p


23622.88). Further analyses revealed that a four-factor ESEM fitted the data acceptably (Χ2 =

418.09; df = 206; p < .001; CFI = .93; RMSEA = .06 (90% CI = .05/.07); SRMR = .03; AIC =

22966.65; BIC = 23494.12; individual-benefitting goals split into two subfactors). With the

exception of two items with substantial cross-loadings, the items loaded only substantially on the

intended factors (see SOM). The three-factor CFA model did not fit the data well (Χ2 = 1009.01;

df = 272; p < .001; CFI = .76; RMSEA = .10 (90% CI = .09/.10); SRMR = .11; AIC = 23375.58;

BIC = 23569.72), albeit it was better than one- and two-factor CFA models (see SOM)



As predicted, the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals was not associated with the

pursuits of group identification, distancing goals, or further collective action intentions when

controlling for other goal pursuits, respectively (ps = .88/.34/.14). As expected, the pursuit of

individual-benefitting goals was positively associated with the pursuit of group-benefitting goals

(r = .62, p < .001; also after controlling for the pursuit of distancing goals, β = .61, t(285) =

13.08, p < .001) but, against expectations, not with the pursuit of distancing goals, respectively (p

= .20; also after controlling for the pursuit of group-benefitting goals, p = .70).






with group identification (β = .48, t(285) = 7.00, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal

pursuits, β = .41, t(283) = 6.84, p < .001), but not with disidentification in a multiple regression

(p = .78)—but against expectations (positively) when controlling for other goal pursuits (β = .17,

t(283) = 2.13, p = .03). As predicted, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was positively

associated with further collective action intentions (r = .54, p < .001; also when controlling for

other goal pursuits, β = .58, t(284) = 9.38, p < .001).

Distancing goals


disidentification (r = .30, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .22, t(284) =

5.03, p < .001). Against expectations, the pursuit of distancing goals was not exclusively

(positively) associated with disidentification (β = .59, t(285) = 8.64, p < .001; also when

controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .59, t(283) = 8.79, p < .001) but was also (positively)

associated with group identification in a multiple regression (β = .45, t(285) = 6.65, p < .001; also

when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = .54, t(283) = 7.36, p < .001). As predicted, the

pursuit of distancing goals was negatively associated with further collective action intentions (r =

-.54, p < .001; also when controlling for other goal pursuits, β = -.22, t(284) = -3.31, p = .001).

Against expectations, the pursuit of distancing goals was not (negatively) associated with group-

benefitting goals (p = .11; also when controlling for the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals, p

= .31).

Taken together, Study 5 replicated previous result patterns with the English version of the

Confrontation Goals Scale in the US-American context, adding to the generalizability of our

findings: Again, we confirmed that goal pursuits were distinct, but also found a separation of the

individual-benefitting goal items in two subfactors. The aggregate of these items is supposed to

represent different facets of individual-benefitting goals, whose difference might be more


pronounced in the different cultural context. However, this result does not refute the overall

concept of distinct confrontation goals. Results on associations of the goal pursuits with other

constructs showed the same patterns as in Studies 1−4.

[Table 5 to be inserted about here]

Meta-Analysis of Associations of Confrontation Goal Pursuits with Key Constructs

While we could robustly confirm the majority of hypothesized associations across studies,

results for some associations differed between studies (Tables 3 and 5). We therefore conducted

small meta-analyses for the proposed associations between the goal pursuits and key variables

over all five scenario studies8 (Figure 1).


The results regarding the associations between the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals

and the other key constructs were as expected: The pursuit of individual-benefitting goals did not

share unique variance with group identification, disidentification, or further collective action

intentions; the meta-analytical effect sizes were less than small, r = .05, Z = 1.69, p = .09, 95%CI

[-.01, .10], r = -.02, Z = -0.87, p = .38, 95%CI [-.08, .03], r = .03, Z = 1.12, p = .26, 95%CI

[-.02, .08], respectively. The meta-analytic effect size of the positive association between the

pursuits of individual-benefitting and group-benefitting goals was large, r = .49, Z = 20.25, p

< .001, 95%CI [.45, .53], controlling for the pursuit of distancing goals. The meta-analytic effect

size of the positive association between the pursuits of individual-benefitting goals and distancing

goals was small, r = .09, Z = 3.56, p < .001, 95%CI [.04, .15], controlling for the pursuit of

group-benefitting goals.


The results regarding the associations between the pursuit of group-benefitting goals and

the other key constructs were also as expected: The meta-analytic effect size of the positive


association between the pursuit of group-benefitting goals and group identification was medium-

to-large range (r = .42, Z = 16.71, p < .001, 95% CI [.37, .46]), controlling for the pursuits of

individual-benefitting and distancing goals. Comparing unique variance with group identification

and disidentification, the pursuit of group-benefitting goals was (positively) associated with

group identification (medium-to-large range meta-analytic effect size, r = .34, Z = 13.24, p

< .001, 95%CI [.29, .38]), but not with disidentification (r = .01, Z = 0.43, p = .67, 95%CI

[-.04, .06]), controlling for other goal pursuits. The meta-analytic effect size of the positive

association between the pursuit of group-benefitting goals and further collective action intentions

was large, r = .53, Z = 20.54, p < .001, 95%CI [.49, .57], controlling for other goal pursuits.

Distancing goals

The results regarding the associations between the pursuit of distancing goals and all other

key constructs were mixed: As expected, the pursuit of distancing goals and disidentification

were positively associated (medium-to-large range meta-analytic effect size, r = .38, Z = 15.15, p

< .001, 95%CI [.34, .42], controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and group-

benefitting goals). Comparing unique variance with disidentification and group identification, the

pursuit of distancing goals was not exclusively associated with disidentification (medium-to-large

range meta-analytic effect size, r = .45, Z = 18.33, p < .001, 95%CI [.41, .49]), but against

expectations was also associated with group identification (small meta-analytic effect size, r

= .17, Z = 6.67, p < .001, 95%CI [.14, .22]), controlling for the pursuits of other goals. The meta-

analytic effect size of the expected negative association between the pursuit of distancing goals

and further collective action intentions was small (r = -.12, Z = -4.06, p < .001, 95%CI [-.17,

-.06], controlling for the other goal pursuits). Against expectations, the pursuits of group-

benefitting and distancing goals were positively associated (meta-analytic effect size was small, r


= .09, Z = 3.28, p = .001, 95%CI [.04, .14], controlling for the pursuit of individual-benefitting

goals).

[Figure 1 to be inserted about here]

General Discussion

The overall purpose of this research was to demonstrate that targets’ confrontation of

discrimination can be the result of distinct psychological processes and is therefore differently

motivated. We developed and validated a self-report measure of confrontation goals across five

studies and found that confrontation goals can overall be empirically distinguished into

individual-benefitting goals (e.g., perpetrator stops mistreatment), group-benefitting goals (e.g.,

prejudice reduction), and distancing goals (e.g., demonstrating that one differs from group).

Furthermore, goal pursuits showed specific associations with group identification,

disidentification, and further collective action intentions: In line with our hypotheses, the pursuit

of individual-benefitting confrontation goals did not share unique variance with group

identification, disidentification, or further collective action intentions, and was overall positively

associated with the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals. As expected, the pursuit of

group-benefitting goals was positively associated with group identification and further collective

action intentions, and not with disidentification.

Results on associations between the pursuit of distancing goals and other constructs were

mixed: As expected, the pursuit of distancing goals was positively associated with

disidentification, and overall negatively associated with further collective action intentions.

Against expectations, the pursuit of distancing goals was positively associated both with group

identification and the pursuit of group-benefitting goals. We elaborate two major implications of

these results: First, we discuss how these results challenge overall the common assumption that

targets’ confrontation of discrimination is only individually motivated and specifically illustrate


that confrontation can be a form of collective action. Second, we discuss how the pursuit of

distancing goals might not represent a (clear-cut) form of self-group distancing together with

alternative interpretations.

Individual- and Group-Benefitting Confrontation Goals: Standing Up for Whom?

Our results overall provide conclusive evidence that targets’ confrontation of

discrimination is not driven by self-serving motives only, but is rather motivated by coping with

both the individual mistreatment and the devaluation of the group (which together constitute

discrimination; Becker & Barreto, 2019; Dovidio et al., 2010; Shapiro, 2011; Shapiro & Neuberg,

2007; Stroebe et al., 2009). These different motivations are represented by the pursuit of (distinct)

confrontation goals: The pursuit of individual-benefitting confrontation goals represents coping

with the individual mistreatment regardless of the group, as it did not share unique variance with

group-related constructs (Kowalski, 1996). Coping with individual mistreatment can occur

simultaneously with coping with the devaluation of the group (either defending or distancing

from the group), which was also supported by our results (positive association with pursuits of

group-benefitting and distancing goals).

Furthermore, our results integrate the previous literature on confrontation with the

literature on collective action, and validate recent discussions of confrontation as a form of

collective action (Becker & Barreto, 2019; Becker et al., 2015; Fischer et al., 2017)—not only by

structurally distinguishing group-benefitting goals from other confrontation goals but also by

demonstrating robust and specific positive associations with group identification and further

collective action intentions (Van Zomeren et al., 2008). Results also illustrate that these coping

processes are represented by a variety of specific goals; for example, coping with the individual

mistreatment through confrontation improves the situation for the individual—either through


tangible changes (perpetrator makes amends) or through intangible benefits (by confronting the

perpetrator the target is able to assert themselves and/or feel better), or both.

Distancing Confrontation Goals: Distancing from Whom?

We also argued that people use confrontation as a strategy to cope with the devaluation of

the group by distancing themselves from the group (Derks et al., 2016; Ellemers, 2001).

Intuitively, targets might not view confrontation as a more efficient strategy for self-group

distancing than non-confrontation. However, this motive came up, to some extent, in our pilot

studies and we expected—especially when the devaluation is rather blatant and unambiguous, as

in the scenarios—that targets might view non-confrontation as a self-group distancing strategy as

ineffective and use confrontation as a last resort (Lindsey et al., 2015). While the pursuit of

distancing goals was structurally distinct from the other goal pursuits, its associations with other

measures do not fully support our argument: On the one hand, participants who indicated a

stronger pursuit of distancing goals presented, to some extent, as if they were psychologically

leaving the group (as they were more strongly disidentified with the group and indicated lower

intentions for further collective action). On the other hand, they also presented as if they were

acting to be part of and defending the group (as they also indicated stronger group identification

and simultaneous pursuit of group-benefitting goals)—which should be incompatible with self-

group distancing (Becker & Tausch, 2014). We propose two alternatives to interpreting distancing

confrontation as self-group distancing that could explain these inconsistencies and potentially

open new research lines (see also Becker & Barreto, 2019):

First, some participants might have interpreted the label describing the in-group (e.g.,

“women”) differently depending on the respective framing of the group identification and group-

benefitting or distancing goal-items: Similarly to broad and general statements about the group in

items measuring group identification, group-benefitting goals relate to social change on a general


level and these outcomes involve all in-group members that fall under this label; therefore,

participants might have internally referred to a maximally inclusive group when completing

group identification and group-benefitting goal items (e.g., “Discrimination against [all] women

is reduced.”). In contrast, distancing goals are more embedded within the specific discriminatory

incident, as the perpetrator typically refers to a specific stereotype about the group. Depending on

their own attitudes about the group, participants might have viewed this stereotype as

prototypical for the group or more as a subtype of the group (e.g., Vonk & Ashmore, 2003). Some

participants might have internally referred to a subordinate group when completing distancing

goal items (e.g., “I make clear that this general statement about this [particular type of woman the

perpetrator is thinking about] does not apply to me”). This internal reference to divergent groups

might be enhanced by targets undergoing a form of identity separation as a reaction to group

devaluation as well as categorization and stereotype threat (von Hippel, Sekaquaptewa, &

McFarlane, 2015). As a consequence, some participants are distancing themselves not from the

group as a whole but from a specific subtype (e.g., “bad woman driver”)—which is compatible

with being part of and defending the group as a whole.

Second, distancing confrontation goals might not even refer psychologically to distancing

oneself from a social group; targets might rather distance themselves from being categorized by

the perpetrator (i.e., rejecting their behavior). Therefore, their sense of self in relation to the group

itself did not change and they did not leave the group psychologically—which is also compatible

with being psychologically part of and defending the group as a whole. Future research could

differentiate forms of distancing as a reaction to a specific discriminatory treatment, both as a

self-group distancing from a subtype (e.g., as a function of group members’ attitudes and

stereotypes about the own group and the specific stereotype conveyed in the discriminatory

treatment) and as a rejection of the categorization (e.g., as a function about targets’ attitudes about


the appropriateness of this categorization in the specific context). Furthermore, considering

targets’ expectation about the efficacy of confrontation as a behavioral strategy for these purposes

(in comparison to other strategies, such as withdrawal from the situation or non-reaction) could

provide further insight into targets’ reactions to discriminatory incidents.

Overall, our findings add to a more nuanced understanding of confrontation as a

phenomenon by differentiating underlying psychological processes (Becker & Barreto, 2019).

For example, considering confrontation as an act of collective action also allows a more nuanced

approach to pathways and barriers to confrontation beyond the individual level (for an analysis of

barriers to feminist collective action see: Radke, Hornsey, & Barlow, 2016). In general, further

research could explore, for instance, situational and psychological predictors of (differently

motivated) confrontation, effects of differently motivated confrontation (in confronters,

perpetrators, and bystanders), or even unaffected bystanders’ (allies’) different motivations for

confrontation.9

Strengths, Limitations, and Future Directions

Our research not only provides evidence for the concept of targets’ differently motivated

confrontation across five (well-powered and preregistered) studies but also introduces a useful

operationalization in the form of the Confrontation Goals Scale (see Appendix). We followed the

recommended steps for systematic development as well as rigorous structural and construct

validation, using multiple samples, contexts, social groups, and cultural context/languages (see

SOM for detailed information on all steps, decisions, and psychometric properties). This

approach is a prominent strength of our research, which makes a substantial contribution to the

study of confrontation of discrimination, given the critique of the widespread use of poorly

validated ad hoc scales in social psychology (Flake, Pek, & Hehman, 2017).


Nevertheless, the operationalization of the goals and the design of the studies have certain

limitations for our conclusions. We used a scenario design and measured participants’ imagined

confrontation and goals via self-report to ensure a standardized context and to obtain adequate

sample sizes for our planned analyses. While the content of the Confrontation Goals Scale items

was developed on the basis of actual incidents of discrimination (Flanagan, 1954), the

examination of the factor structure and correlates were not. There are several caveats to this:

First, measurement with the Confrontation Goals Scale (like any self-report measure) requires

that targets are able to mentally access their underlying goals and truthfully report them. Further

research could complement this measurement method, e.g., through utilizing goal accessibility

(Touré-Tillery & Fishbach, 2014). Second, people tend to overestimate their imagined

confrontation likelihood compared to their actual behavior (Webb & Sheeran, 2006; Woodzicka

& LaFrance, 2001). However, this research does not make assertions about the likelihood of

confrontation but rather about the structure of potential underlying goals and their correlates. We

believe that the structure of the subjective importance of different goals does not differ

substantially between an imagined and actual confrontation, as previous research indicates an

overlap of imagined and actual appraisals and emotional reactions (e.g., Robinson & Clore,

2001). It can certainly be argued that people might report a strong pursuit of a certain goal that

they would not report after an actual confrontation (because the specific situation inhibits a

confrontation with this goal). However, this potential “overreporting” of imagined confrontation

could actually be an advantage in our research on differently motivated confrontation: The

intention−action gap of confrontation might occur systematically in one of the described

motivational paths, so these goals would be otherwise underreported and the motivational path

overlooked. This would make explanatory models for non-confrontation less informative. Further


research on differently motivated confrontation with the aim of predicting the likelihood of

confrontation should measure actual behavior.

Similarly, the use of scenarios that described blatant cases of discrimination might

compromise the generalizability of our findings to more subtle (and surely more realistic)

instances of discrimination because participants might have trouble imagining themselves in

those scenarios. We believe that subtlety certainly affects the certainty with which participants

attribute an interaction as being an instance of discrimination and thus the confrontation

likelihood as well as the degrees of goal pursuits (Barreto & Ellemers, 2005; Ely, 1994; Lindsey

et al., 2015). Therefore, we only draw our conclusions from the structure of the goal pursuits and

shared variances; we also recommend interpreting both confrontation likelihood and the absolute

values of goal pursuits in our studies only with extreme caution.

There are also limitations to the scope of the research, most importantly its correlational

design: The associations between the goal pursuits and other constructs do not provide evidence

for causal effects. Only future experimental research can examine causal predictors of differently

motivated confrontation—for example, how characteristics of the discrimination (e.g., subtlety

and severity) elicit different coping strategies. This research should consider that the predictors of

(self-reported) behavioral intentions might differ from the predictors of actual behavior (e.g.,

Baumert, Halmburger, & Schmitt, 2013). Finally, our unexpected results regarding distancing

goals indicate that the conceptualization of the social group in question needs to consider that

social identity/-ies in the face of discrimination are more complex than a single, but broad social

group (e.g., “women as a group”). Future research should examine how the formation of and

identification with subtypes and intersections of multiple identities affect confrontation motives

to cope with discrimination (e.g., von Hippel et al., 2015; Warner, 2008).


Overall Conclusion

The woman in the initially described discrimination scenario actually faces challenges on

two levels: As an individual, she suffers individual harm (e.g., financial damage, exclusion from

opportunities, and disrespect); as a group member, she has to endure the fact that the perpetrator

also reduced her to her identity as a woman and devalued women as an entire social group. The

present research established that confrontation as a reaction to discrimination can be motivated by

both of these challenges and can thus be the result of different motivational processes (coping

with individual mistreatment, collective action, distancing)—indicated by the pursuit of

respective confrontation goals.

(9974 words)


References

Armenta, B. M., Stroebe, K., Scheibe, S., Postmes, T., & van Yperen, N. W. (2017). Feeling

younger and identifying with older adults: Testing two routes to maintaining well-being in the

face of age discrimination. PloS One, 12(11), no pagination (article number: e0187805).

https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0187805

Ashburn-Nardo, L., Morris, K. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2008). The Confronting Prejudiced

Responses (CPR) Model: Applying CPR in organizations. Academy of Management, 7, 332–

342. https://doi.org/10.5465/amle.2008.34251671

Asparouhov, T., & Muthén, B. (2009). Exploratory structural equation modeling. Structural

Equation Modeling: A Multidisciplinary Journal, 16, 397–438.

https://doi.org/10.1080/10705510903008204

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2005). The perils of political correctness: Men’s and women’s

responses to old-fashioned and modern sexist views. Social Psychology Quarterly, 68, 75−88.

https://doi.org/10.1177/019027250506800106

Barreto, M., & Ellemers, N. (2015). Detecting and experiencing prejudice: New answers to old

questions. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 52, 139–219.

https://doi.org/10.1016/bs.aesp.2015.02.001

Barreto, M., Ellemers, N., Scholten, W., & Smith, H. (2010). To be or not to be: The impact of

implicit versus explicit inappropriate social categorizations on the self. British Journal of

Social Psychology, 49, 43–67. https://doi.org/10.1348/014466608X400830

Baumert, A., Halmburger, A., & Schmitt, M. (2013). Interventions against norm violations:

Dispositional determinants of self-reported and real moral courage. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 39, 1053–1068. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213490032


Becker, J. C., & Barreto, M. (2019). Personal, collective, and group-distancing motives

underlying confrontation of prejudice. In R. K. Mallett & M. J. Monteith (Eds.), Confronting

prejudice and discrimination: The science of changing minds and behaviors (pp. 141−158).

London, UK: Academic Press.

Becker, J. C., Barreto, M., Kahn, K. B., & de Oliveira Laux, S. H. (2015). The collective value of

“me” (and its limitations): Towards a more nuanced understanding of individual and collective

coping with prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 71, 497–516.

https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12125

Becker, J. C., & Tausch, N. (2014). When group memberships are negative: The concept,

measurement, and behavioral implications of psychological disidentification. Self and Identity,

13, 294–321. https://doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2013.819991

Booth, T., & Hughes, D. J. (2014). Exploratory structural equation modeling of personality data.

Assessment, 21, 260–271. https://doi.org/10.1177/1073191114528029

Branscombe, N. R., Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (1999). The context and content of

social identity threat. In N. Ellemers, R. Spears, & B. Doosje (Eds.), Social identity: Context,

commitment, content (pp. 35–58). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.

Chaney, K. E., & Sanchez, D. T. (2018). The endurance of interpersonal confrontations as a

prejudice reduction strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 44, 418–429.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167217741344

Czopp, A. M., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to

confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532–

544. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167202250923


Derks, B., van Laar, C., & Ellemers, N. (2016). The Queen Bee phenomenon: Why women

leaders distance themselves from junior women. Leadership Quarterly, 27, 456–469.

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.leaqua.2015.12.007

Derks, B., van Laar, C., Ellemers, N., & Raghoe, G. (2015). Extending the Queen Bee effect:

How Hindustani workers cope with disadvantage by distancing the self from the group.

Journal of Social Issues, 71, 476–496. https://doi.org/10.1111/josi.12124

Dovidio, J. F., Hewstone, M., Glick, P., & Esses, V. (2010). Prejudice, stereotyping and

discrimination: Theoretical and empirical overview. In J. F. Dovidio (Ed.), The SAGE

handbook of prejudice, stereotyping and discrimination (1st ed., pp. 3–28). Los Angeles, CA:

Sage Publication.

Ellemers, N. (2001). Individual upward mobility and the perceived legitimacy of intergroup

relations. In J. T. Jost & B. Major (Eds.), The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives

on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations (pp. 205–222). Cambridge, UK: Cambridge

University Press.

Ellemers, N., Spears, R., & Doosje, B. (2002). Self and social identity. Annual Review of

Psychology, 53, 161–186. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.53.100901.135228

Ely, R. J. (1994). The effects of organizational demographics and social identity on relationships

among professional women. Administrative Science Quarterly, 39, 203–238.

https://doi.org/10.2307/2393234

Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A.-G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical

power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior

Research Methods, 39, 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146


Fischer, F., Becker, J. C., Kito, M., & Nayır, D. Z. (2017). Collective action against sexism in

Germany, Turkey, and Japan: The influence of self-construal and face concerns. Group

Processes and Intergroup Relations, 20, 409–423. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216683533

Flake, J. K., Pek, J., & Hehman, E. (2017). Construct validation in social and personality

research: Current practice and recommendations. Social Psychological and Personality

Science, 8, 370−378. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550617693063

Flanagan, J. C. (1954). The critical incident technique. Psychological Bulletin, 51, 327.

https://doi.org/10.1037/h0061470

Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies: Some

arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10,

535–549. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12267

Hornsey, M. J., Blackwood, L., Louis, W. R., Fielding, K., Mavor, K., Morton, T., … Smith, J.

(2006). Why do people engage in collective action? Revisiting the role of perceived

effectiveness. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36, 1701–1722. https://doi.org/

10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00077.x

Hyers, L. L. (2007). Resisting prejudice every day: Exploring women’s assertive responses to

anti-black racism, anti-semitism, heterosexism, and sexism. Sex Roles, 56, 1–12.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-006-9142-8

Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions

to discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254–263.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201272010


Kaiser, C. R., & Miller, C. T. (2004). A stress and coping perspective on confronting sexism.

Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 168–178. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-

6402.2004.00133.x

Klein, O., Spears, R., & Reicher, S. (2007). Social identity performance: Extending the strategic

side of SIDE. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 28–45.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294588

Kowalski, R. M. (1996). Complaints and complaining: Functions, antecedents, and consequences.

Psychological Bulletin, 119, 179–196. doi:10.1037//0033-2909.119.2.179

Leach, C. W., Van Zomeren, M., Zebel, S., Vliek, M. L. W., Pennekamp, S. F., Doosje, B., . . .

Spears, R. (2008). Group-level self-definition and self-investment: A hierarchical

(multicomponent) model of in-group identification. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 95, 144–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.95.1.144

Leaper, C., & Arias, D. M. (2011). College women’s feminist identity: A multidimensional

analysis with implications for coping with sexism. Sex Roles, 64, 475–490.

https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-011-9936-1

Lindsey, A., King, E., Cheung, H., Hebl, M., Lynch, S., & Mancini, V. (2015). When do women

respond against discrimination? Exploring factors of subtlety, form, and focus. Journal of

Applied Social Psychology, 45, 649–661. https://doi.org/10.1111/jasp.12326

Major, B., Quinton, W. J., & Schmader, T. (2003). Attributions to discrimination and self-esteem:

Impact of group identification and situational ambiguity. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 39, 220–231. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00547-4


Marsh, H. W., Liem, G. A. D., Martin, A. J., Morin, A. J., & Nagengast, B. (2011).

Methodological measurement fruitfulness of exploratory structural equation modeling

(ESEM): New approaches to key substantive issues in motivation and engagement. Journal of

Psychoeducational Assessment, 29, 322–346. https://doi.org/10.1177/0734282911406657

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Muthén, B., Asparouhov, T., Morin, A. J. S., Trautwein, U., &

Nagengast, B. (2010). A new look at the big five factor structure through exploratory structural

equation modeling. Psychological Assessment, 22, 471–491. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0019227

Marsh, H. W., Lüdtke, O., Nagengast, B., Morin, A. J. S., & von Davier, M. (2013). Why item

parcels are (almost) never appropriate: Two wrongs do not make a right − Camouflaging

misspecification with item parcels in CFA models. Psychological Methods, 18, 257–284.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032773

Marsh, H. W., Morin, A. J. S., Parker, P. D., & Kaur, G. (2014). Exploratory structural equation

modeling: An integration of the best features of exploratory and confirmatory factor analysis.

Annual Review of Clinical Psychology, 10, 85–110. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-clinpsy-

032813-153700

Perry, J. L., Nicholls, A. R., Clough, P. J., & Crust, L. (2015) Assessing model fit: Caveats and

recommendations for confirmatory factor analysis and exploratory structural equation

modeling. Measurement in Physical Education and Exercise Science, 19, 12–21.

https://doi.org/10.1080/1091367X.2014.952370

Radke, H. R., Hornsey, M. J., & Barlow, F. K. (2016). Barriers to women engaging in collective

action to overcome sexism. American Psychologist, 71, 863–874.

https://doi.org/10.1037/a0040345


Rasinski, H. M., Geers, A. L., & Czopp, A. M. (2013). ‘I guess what he said wasn’t that bad’:

Dissonance in nonconfronting targets of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 39, 856–869. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167213484769

Robinson, M. D., & Clore, G. L. (2001). Simulation, scenarios, and emotional appraisal: Testing

the convergence of real and imagined reactions to emotional stimuli. Personality and Social

Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1520–1532. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672012711012

Roth, J., & Mazziotta, A. (2015). Adaptation and validation of a German multidimensional and

multicomponent measure of social identification. Social Psychology, 46, 277–290.

https://doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000243

Shapiro, J. R. (2011). Different groups, different threats: A multi-threat approach to the

experience of stereotype threats. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37, 464−480.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167211398140

Shapiro, J. R., & Neuberg, S. L. (2007). From stereotype threat to stereotype threats: Implications

of a Multi-Threat Framework for causes, moderators, mediators, consequences, and interven-

tions. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 11, 107−130.

https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868306294790

Shelton, J. N., & Stewart, R. E. (2004). Confronting perpetrators of prejudice: The inhibitory

effects of social costs. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 28, 215–223.

https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1471-6402.2004.00138.x

Simon, B., Loewy, M., Stürmer, S., Weber, U., Freytag, P., Habig, C., . . . Spahlinger, P. (1998).

Collective identification and social movement participation. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 646–658. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.3.646


Stroebe, K., Ellemers, N., Barreto, M., & Mummendey, A. (2009). For better or for worse: The

congruence of personal and group outcomes on targets’ responses to discrimination. European

Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 576–591. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.557

Sweetman, J., Leach, C. W., Spears, R., Pratto, F., & Saab, R. (2013). “I have a dream”: A

typology of social change goals. Journal of Social and Political Psychology, 1, 293–320.

https://doi.org/10.5964/jspp.v1i1.85

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. G. Austin &

S. Worchel (Eds.), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Monterey, CA:

Brooks/Cole.

Touré-Tillery, M., & Fishbach, A. (2014). How to measure motivation: A guide for the

experimental social psychologist. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 328–341.

https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12110

Van Zomeren, M. (2013). Four core social-psychological motivations to undertake collective

action. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 378–388.

https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12031

Van Zomeren, M., Postmes, T., & Spears, R. (2008). Toward an integrative social identity model

of collective action: A quantitative research synthesis of three socio-psychological

perspectives. Psychological Bulletin, 134, 504–535. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-

2909.134.4.504

von Hippel, C., Sekaquaptewa, D., & McFarlane, M. (2015). Stereotype threat among women in

finance. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 39, 405–414.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684315574501


Vonk, R., & Ashmore, R. D. (2003). Thinking about gender types: Cognitive organization of

female and male types. British Journal of Social Psychology, 42, 257–280.

https://doi.org/10.1348/014466603322127247

Wang, K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2017). Perceiving and confronting sexism: The causal role of gender

identity salience. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 41, 65–76.

https://doi.org/10.1177/0361684316670628

Warner, L. R. (2008). A best practices guide to intersectional approaches in psychological

research. Sex Roles, 59, 454–463. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-008-9504-5

Wasserstein, R. L., Schirm, A. L., & Lazar, N. A. (2019). Moving to a world beyond “p < 0.05”.

The American Statistician, 73(supp.1), 1–19. https://doi.org/10.1080/00031305.2019.1583913

Webb, T. L., & Sheeran, P. (2006). Does changing behavioral intentions engender behavior

change? A meta-analysis of the experimental evidence. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 249–268.

https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.2.249

Woodzicka, J. A., & LaFrance, M. (2001). Real versus imagined gender harassment. Journal of

Social Issues, 57, 15–30. https://doi.org/10.1111/0022-4537.00199


Endnotes

1: We deviated from the preregistrations by running additional analyses. We distinguish results

regarding preregistered hypotheses with the prefixes “As predicted” or “Against predictions.”

2: Result patterns did not differ when excluding participants who indicated “no confrontation” or

“unsure” if they were in the situation described in the scenario.

3: The hypotheses regarding unique variance of the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals with

group-related contracts explicitly specify controlling for other goals as necessary for their test.

All other hypotheses do not. We also test these associations when controlling for other goal

pursuits to test the robustness of the simple association.

4: In Study 2, we randomized whether participants first read the scenario and completed the

Confrontation Goals Scale or first completed the other measures — the order did not moderate

any of the associations reported here.

5: Result patterns did not differ when excluding participants who indicated “no confrontation” or

“unsure” if they were in the situation described in the scenario.

6: “Imagine that you have been planning a weekend trip with a group of friends. You cannot get

to the trip’s destination by public transport. Therefore, you want to rent a car; you choose a

suitable car online and book it. You are now at the car rental company to pick up the car. Mr. S.

is responsible for handing over your car and keys. After he checks the computer for your

booking, he turns towards you and says: ‘I believe there has been some mistake. We do not give

this car to women on principle. It’s quite big and not very easy to park. Also, it has rather high

horsepower for a woman to handle, therefore I cannot rent this car to you and there are no other

cars available at the moment.’”


7: “Imagine that you overhear your co-worker Mr./Ms. M. (39 years) discussing his/her recent

pay raise. Although you received higher performance evaluations than Mr./Ms. M., you did not

receive an increase in pay. You decide to approach your supervisor Mr./Ms. S. (43 years) to ask

for a comparable increase in pay. He/She refuses, and tells you that, ‘People over the age of 50 do

not deserve to make as much as younger people.’” The gender of the co-worker and supervisor

was matched with the participants’ gender to avoid an interpretation as sexist discrimination (the

participant who identified with another gender read the female version).

8: In this section, we report p-values of the meta-analytical effect sizes as continuous quantities,

not as indicators of inference (Wasserstein, Schirm, & Lazar, 2019) and focus our interpretation

of results on effect sizes (following the conventions of r = .1 being a small, r = .3 being a

medium, and r = .5 being a large effect) and their confidence intervals. We include effect sizes

for regression coefficients when controlling for other goal pursuits to make the associations

comparable with the associations that represent unique variance between the pursuits on

individual-benefitting goals and group-related constructs. We follow the fixed approach

described by Goh, Hall, and Rosenthal (2016), using their provided spreadsheet.

9: In this context, it is important to note that the goals share variance and using the scales

separately might mask specific effects. We therefore recommend including all goal scales as

dependent variables in multivariate analyses.


Tables

Table 1

Basic Characteristics of Studies 1−5

Study

1 2 3 4 5

Sample

N 401 330 221 207 288

Recruiting Convenience Commercial, quota (age &

education) Convenience Convenience Commercial

Context German(-speaking)

German(-speaking)

German(-speaking)

German(-speaking) US-American

Gender Women only Women only Women only 160 women,

46 men, 1 other

Women only

M (SD)age 31.71 (9.53) 43.70 (14.10) 31.61 (10.74) 57.95 (6.47) 35.29 (12.51)

Psych.stud. 61% NA 44% 30% NA

Design

Social group Women Women Women People over the age of 50 Women

Scenario Work Work Car rental Work Work

Scale

Preliminary 36 items,

selection of 25 items

Rewording of two items

Rewording of three items,

final German version

Adaption to other social

group

Translation English version

Constructs GI, DI, CAI GI, DI, CAI, AS

GI, DI, GB-A, IP-A, IG-A,

ID-C

GI, DI, CAI, SAB GI, DI, CAI

Power Analysis

|ρ| .14 .15 .19 .19 .16

f2 .02 .02 .04 .04 .03 Note. Psych.stud. = percentage of participants who indicated current or previous studies in psychology; NA = question was not included in this study; GI = Group Identification; DI = Disidentification; CAI = Collective Action Intentions; AS = Ambivalent Sexism; GB-A = Group-based Anger; IP-A = Interpersonal Anger; IG-A = Intragroup Anger; ID-C = Identification Content; SAB = Subjective Age Bias. We conducted sensitivity power analyses for the minimum detectable effect sizes for each study given the sample size, an alpha of 5% (two-sided), and the standard power criterion of 80%, calculated with G*Power (Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007); |ρ| = minimum detectable effect size for correlations given the sample size, alpha = 5%, power = 80%; f2 = minimum detectable effect size for regression coefficients given the sample size, alpha = 5%, power = 80% (2−4 predictors).


Table 2

Cronbach’s Alpha, Range, Means, and Standard Deviations for Key Variables in Studies 1−5

Note. NA = we did not measure further collective action intentions in Study 3.

Study

1 2 3 4 5

α Range M (SD) α Range M

(SD) α Range M (SD) α Range M

(SD) α Range M (SD)

Individual-benefitting goals .81 1.87–7.00 5.77

(0.86) .85 1.44–7.00 5.93 (0.94) .82 1.44–7.00 5.89

(1.00) .86 1.00–7.00 5.66 (1.19) .83 2.44–

7.00 6.13

(0.83)

Group-benefitting goals .86 1.00–7.00 4.93

(1.22) .84 1.00–7.00 5.55 (1.06) .92 1.00–7.00 4.91

(1.59) .92 1.00–7.00 4.84 (1.68) .89 1.50–

7.00 5.82

(1.12)

Distancing goals .83 1.00–6.25 2.49 (1.07) .82 1.00–7.00 3.57

(1.31) .83 1.00–6.38 2.43 (1.16) .79 1.00–6.38 2.54

(1.17) .80 1.00–5.62

2.68 (1.10)

Group identification .87 1.00–7.00 3.80 (1.36) .94 1.53–7.00 4.62

(1.17) .91 2.33–7.00 4.63 (0.97) .80 1.00–7.00 4.45

(1.80) .92 1.77–7.00

5.13 (1.07)

Disidentification .91 1.00–6.40 2.19 (1.01) .90 1.00–7.00 2.54

(1.19) .84 1.00–4.80 1.99 (0.78) .62 1.00–6.67 2.28

(1.27) .90 1.00–4.91

1.96 (0.89)

Collective action intentions .83 1.00–7.00 4.50

(1.54) .83 1.00–7.00 4.75 (1.58) NA NA NA .87 1.00–7.00 4.36

(1.84) .89 1.00–7.00

5.50 (1.54)


Table 3

Associations between Goals Pursuits, Group Identification, Disidentification, and Collective Action Intentions in Studies 1−5


Group-benefitting goals Distancing goals Group identification Disidentification Collective action

intentions

Individual-benefitting goals - .35/.62/.33/.46/.61a .07/.07/.20/.20/-.03b -.04/.11/.10/.14/-.01c .03/-.14/.12/-.03/-.07c .07/.06/NA/.08/-.09c

Group-benefitting goals .35/.65/.38/.53/.62 - -.02/.22/.19/.18/-.08d .47/.34/.26/.52/.48e NH .51/.45/NA/.61/.58e

Distancing goals .08/.26/.29/.34/-.08 .01/.30/.27/.31/-.09 - NH .49/.44/.20/.37/.22f -.16/-.02/NA/-.12/-.22f

Group identification .11/.33/.22/.37/.28 .45/.41/.32/.53/.46 -.07/.14/.19/.13/.08 - NH NH

Disidentification .04/-.14/.13/.12/-.22 -.07/-.13/-.04/.15/-.28 .49/.36/.20/.38/.30 -.14/-.36/-.31/-.04/-.64 - NH

Collective action intentions .24/-.02/NA/.36/.28 .53/.35/NA/.61/.54 -.14/.13/NA/.09/-.21 .43/.30/NA/.37/.33 -.16/-.12/NA/-.04/-.25 -

Note. Below diagonal: zero-order Pearson correlation coefficients. Above diagonal: standardized regression coefficients for hypothesized associations of goal pursuits with key variables while controlling for other goal pursuits; a: controlling for the pursuit of distancing goals; b: controlling for the pursuit of group-benefitting goals; c: controlling for the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals; d: controlling for the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals; e: controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and distancing goals; f: controlling for the pursuits of individual- and group-benefitting goals. NH = no hypothesis about association. NA = we did not measure further collective action intentions in Study 3. Coefficients in boldface are significant (p < .05).

TARGETS’ DIFFERENT CONFRONTATION GOALS 52 Table 4

Categories and Sources for Initial Item Pool (Study 1)

Category Source for Category Items

“Durch meine Reaktion möchte ich erreichen, dass ...” (I want my reaction to achieve that ...)


Individual change

Becker et al. (2015) Hyers (2007) Kowalski (1996) Pilot 1 Pilot 2

... [perpetrator] aufhört, sich mir gegenüber so zu verhalten. (... [perpetrator] stops treating me this way.) ... [perpetrator] erkennt, dass es nicht in Ordnung war, sich so zu verhalten. (... [perpetrator] realizes that it was not okay to behave like that.) ... [perpetrator] sein Verhalten wieder gut macht. (... [perpetrator] makes up for his behavior.) ... ich gerecht behandelt werde. (... I am treated fairly.)

Individual assertiveness

Becker et al. (2015) Hyers (2007) Kowalski (1996) Pilot 1 Pilot 2

... ich mich selber verteidige. (... I can defend myself.) ... ich meine Anliegen durchsetzen kann. (... I can make my point.) ... klar wird, dass ich mir nichts gefallen lasse. (... it becomes clear that I am not going to put up with anything.)

Individual help from bystanders Pilot 1

... andere Personen mir helfen. (... other people help me.) ... andere Personen sehen, dass ich falsch behandelt wurde. (... other people see that I’m treated wrongly.)

Individual emotional benefits

Hyers (2007) Kowalski (1996) Rasinski, Geers, & Czopp (2013) Pilot 1 Pilot 2

... ich mich besser fühle. (... I feel better) ... ich schlechte Gefühle „rauslassen“ kann. (... I can let off bad feelings) ... ich mich nicht ohnmächtig fühle. (... I don’t feel powerless.)


Intergroup relations

Becker et al. (2015)

Chaney & Sanchez (2018)

Czopp & Monteith (2003) Hyers (2007)

Pilot 1

Pilot 2

... Frauen von Männern weniger diskriminiert werden. (... women are being less discriminated against by men)

... Männern klar wird, dass solche Aussagen über Frauen nicht stimmen. (... it becomes clear to men that those kinds of statements about women are not true.)

... Frauen in Zukunft bessere Chancen haben. (... women have better chances in the future.)




Broader societal concerns


Hornsey et al. (2006)

Van Zomeren (2013)

Pilot 1

Pilot 2

... sich mehr Personen für Frauenrechte einsetzen. (... more people stand up for women’s rights.)

... Diskriminierung aufgezeigt wird. (... discrimination is pointed out.)

... Menschen sich mehr Gedanken über Sexismus machen. (... people reflect more on sexism.)

Intragroup concerns, building opposition



Pilot 1

Pilot 2

... Frauen einen besseren Gruppenzusammenhalt haben. (... women have a better group cohesiveness.) ... Frauen sich gegenseitig unterstützen. (... women support each other.) ... Frauen sich wehren. (... women fight back.)

Identity performance


Klein, Spears, & Reicher. (2007)

Pilot 1

... ich Loyalität gegenüber Frauen demonstriere. (... I demonstrate loyalty towards women.) ... klar wird, dass ich stolz bin, eine Frau zu sein. (... it becomes clear that I am proud to be a woman.) ... ich meine Identität als Frau stärke. (... I strengthen my identity as a woman.)

Distancing goals

Distance from typical women


... man nicht auf die Idee kommt, dass ich eine typische Frau sei. (... no one gets the idea that I am a typical woman.) ... ich zeige, dass ich anders als die typische Frau bin. (... I demonstrate that I am different from the typical woman.) ... ich klar mache, dass diese allgemeine Aussage über Frauen auf mich nicht zutrifft. (... I make clear that this general statement about women does not apply to me.)

Make individuality salient, distance from group


Becker & Tausch (2014)

Pilot 1

Pilot 2

... ich nicht in die „Schublade Frau“ gesteckt, sondern als Individuum wahrgenommen werde. (... I don’t get “pigeon-holed” as a woman, but perceived as an individual.) ... ich mich von der Gruppe der Frauen distanziere. (... I distance myself from women as a group.) ... klar wird, dass ich nicht als Frau kategorisiert werden will. (... it becomes clear that I don’t want to be categorized as a woman.)

Disagree with gender categorization and stereotyping

Pilot 1

... [perpetrator] erkennt, dass es falsch ist, in solchen Kategorien zu denken. (... [perpetrator] realizes that it is wrong to think in such categories.) ... klar wird, dass es keinen Sinn macht, hier zwischen Männern und Frauen zu unterscheiden. (... it becomes clear that it doesn’t make sense to distinguish between men and women in this case.)




... die Einschätzung von Personen nicht von ihrem Geschlecht abhängt. (... the assessment of people doesn’t depend on their gender.)

Harming in-group Becker & Tausch (2014)

... [perpetrator] klar wird, dass man andere Frauen vielleicht so behandeln kann - aber mich nicht. (... [perpetrator] realizes that one can maybe treat other women like that – but not me.) ... ich einen Vorteil gegenüber anderen Frauen bekomme. (... I get an advantage over other women.) ... ich zeige, dass ich auch nicht gut auf Frauen zu sprechen bin. (... I show that I do not have nice things to say about women either.)

Note. Pilot 1 = Critical incidents, N = 200. Pilot 2 = Survey, N = 21.


Table 5

Standardized Regression Coefficients for Group Identification and Disidentification Predicting the Pursuits of Group-

Benefitting and Distancing Goals

Group-benefitting goals Distancing goals

a b a c

Group identification .45/.42/.34/.54/.48 .42/.20/.26/.40/.41 -.003/.31/.27/.14/.45 -.03/.19/.17/-.03/.54

Disidentification -.003/.02/.06/.17/.02 -.04/-.04/-.04/.08/.17 .49/.47/.28/.38/.59 .49/.47/.24/.32/.59 Note. a: standardized coefficients when regressing respective goal pursuit on group identification and disidentification; b: standardized coefficients when regressing respective goal pursuit on group identification and disidentification and controlling for the pursuits of individual-benefitting and distancing goals; c: standardized coefficients when regressing respective goal pursuit on group identification and disidentification and controlling for the pursuits of individual- and group-benefitting goals. Coefficients in boldface are significant (p < .05).


Figure 1. Meta-analytical effect sizes of the associations between the pursuits of individual-benefitting, group-benefitting, and distancing

confrontation goals and group identification, disidentification, and further collective action intentions. Values indicate meta-analytic effect sizes of

standardized regression coefficients across studies (only effect sizes that are at least small). Subscript a: regression coefficients for the pursuit of

group-benefitting and distancing goals when respectively regressing group identification or disidentification on all three goal pursuits. Subscript b:

regression coefficients for group identification and disidentification regressing the pursuits of group-benefitting or distancing goals on group

identification, disidentification, and the other two respective goal pursuits. Subscript c: regression coefficients for the pursuits of group-benefitting

and distancing goals when regressing the pursuit of individual-benefitting goals on them and for the pursuit of group-benefitting goals when

regressed on the pursuit of the other two goal pursuits. Subscript d: regression coefficients for the pursuits of group-benefitting and distancing goals

when regressing further collective action intentions on all three goal pursuits.


Appendix

Confrontation Goals Scale

I want my reaction to achieve that ... (Durch meine Reaktion möchte ich erreichen, dass ...)


... [perpetrator] stops treating me this way. (... [perpetrator] aufhört, sich mir gegenüber so zu

verhalten.) (SF)

... [perpetrator] realizes that it was not okay to behave like that. (... [perpetrator] erkennt, dass es

nicht in Ordnung war, sich so zu verhalten.)

... [perpetrator] makes up for his behavior. (... [perpetrator] sein Verhalten wieder gut macht.)

... I am treated fairly. (... ich gerecht behandelt werde.)

... I defend myself. (... ich mich selber verteidige.)

... I can make my point. (... ich meine Anliegen durchsetzen kann.)

... it becomes clear that I am not going to put up with anything. (... klar wird, dass ich mir nichts

gefallen lasse.) (SF)

... I feel better. (... ich mich besser fühle.)

... I feel like I can take action. (... ich das Gefühl habe, selbst etwas tun zu können.) (SF)


... discrimination against [in-group] is reduced. (... dass die Diskriminierung von [in-group]

reduziert wird.)


... [outgroup] are less prejudiced against [group] in the future. (... dass [outgroup] künftig weniger

Vorurteile über [in-group] haben.)

... [in-group] have better chances in the future. (... [in-group] in Zukunft bessere Chancen haben.)

(SF)

... more people stand up for [in-group]‘s rights. (... sich mehr Personen für [in-group]rechte

einsetzen.) (SF)

... people reflect more on [structural discrimination if in-group, e.g. sexism]. (... Menschen sich

mehr Gedanken über [structural discrimination if in-group, e.g. sexism] machen.)

... [in-group] stick together more. (… [in-group] besser zusammenhalten.)

... [in-group] support each other. (... [in-group] sich gegenseitig unterstützen.) (SF)

... [in-group] fight back. (... [in-group] sich wehren.)

Distancing goals

... no one gets the idea that I am a typical [in-group]. (... man nicht auf die Idee kommt, dass ich

ein/-e typische/-r [in-group] sei.)

... I demonstrate that I am different from the typical [in-group]. (... ich zeige, dass ich anders als

der/die typische [in-group] bin.) (SF)

... I make clear that this general statement about [in-group] does not apply to me. (... ich klar

mache, dass diese allgemeine Aussage über [in-group] auf mich nicht zutrifft.

... I distance myself from [in-group] as a group. (... ich mich von der Gruppe der [in-group]

distanziere.


... it becomes clear that I do not want to be “pigeon-holed“ as a [in-group]. (... klar wird, dass ich

nicht in die „Schublade [in-group]“ gesteckt werden will) (SF)

... [perpetrator] realizes that one can maybe treat other [in-group] like that – but not me. (...

[perpetrator] klar wird, dass man andere [in-group] vielleicht so behandeln kann - aber mich

nicht.

... I get an advantage over other [in-group]. (... ich einen Vorteil gegenüber anderen [in-group]

bekomme. (SF)

... I show that I do not have nice things to say about [in-group] either. (... ich zeige, dass ich auch

nicht gut auf [in-group] zu sprechen bin.)

SF = Short Form (see SOM for details on development)

TARGETS' DIFFERENT CONFRONTATION GOALS

Documents

Transcript of TARGETS' DIFFERENT CONFRONTATION GOALS