When a sexist statement is followed by a brief silence that disrupts the flow of the conversation, observers think that it is contentious and that sexism is neither shared nor normative

Koudenburg, N., Kannegieter, A. Postmes, T., Kashima, Y. (2020). The subtle spreading of sexist norms. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, Oct 2020. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430220961838

Abstract: Even when overt sexism and prejudice become rarer, social norms that perpetuate inequality are remarkably persistent. The present research lays out one of the subtle ways in which sexist norms may spread through society, by pointing to the role of responses to sexism. We investigate how third parties infer social norms about sexism when observing social interactions. In three studies among male students (Studies 1 and 2) and male and female students (Study 3), we demonstrate that subtle variations in how people respond to a sexist statement can have a substantial influence on inferences third parties make about sexist norms. Specifically, when a sexist statement is made and the conversation continues in a smoothly flowing fashion, third parties infer that this opinion is shared among interaction partners, perceived as appropriate, and that sexism is normative among them. However, when a sexist statement is followed by a brief silence that disrupts the flow of the conversation, observers think that it is contentious and that sexism is neither shared nor normative. Importantly, the effects of the manipulation generalized to the perception of sexist descriptive norms among male students in general. We conclude that social and cultural norms are not just inferred from conversation content, but also from conversational flow.

General Discussion

Many concerns have been raised about the perpetuation of social and cultural norms that promote inequality between social groups. The present research lays out one of the subtle ways in which sexist norms may spread through society, by pointing to the role of responses to sexism. Findings suggest that humans are very adept at interpreting social interactions, attending not just to what is said, but also to the subtle ways in which others respond. Even in the absence of explicit responses, sexist expressions are being evaluated by reference to the consensus that is inferred from the microdynamics of the conversational flow.

Across three studies, we demonstrated that subtle variations in conversational responses to a sexist statement influence the inference of sexist norms among passive observers. Specifically, when a sexist statement in a conversation (“Most women don’t have those natural leadership capacities”) was followed by the smooth continuation of the conversation, without objection to the statement, passive observers inferred that this opinion was socially accepted among interaction partners, and thus considered normative. Not only did observers feel this opinion was more shared among interaction partners (reflecting a descriptive norm shift, moderate to large effect), a meta-analysis across the three studies also suggests that participants feel the sexist statement is more appropriate to express in the conversation (reflecting an injunctive norm shift, moderate to large effect). Studies 2 and 3 demonstrated that the sexist norms inferred from a single conversation between male students were generalized to perceptions of increased endorsement of sexist ideas in the general population of male students.

The three studies further provide converging evidence on what could nullify the effect of a sexist statement on norm perception. In line with Hypothesis 2, when a sexist statement was followed by a brief silence that disrupted the flow of the conversation, observers were likely to take this as a sign that the statement was contentious and perceived the descriptive norm to be less sexist than in a conversation that continued as if nothing unusual had been said. Indeed, in the disrupted flow condition, the norm was seen to be no more sexist than in a control condition where no sexist statement was made. This demonstrates that brief disruptions of the flow of a conversation send a subtle but very powerful signal. Extending previous research that showed that speakers and observers experienced a relational threat after being exposed to a pause of less than 4 seconds in a 4-minute conversation (Koudenburg et al., 2011, 2013b, 2014), the present research suggests that these relational inferences are intimately tied to the content of what is being discussed. As a result, conversational flow (or its disruption) can be a highly influential gauge of the degree of consensus within a group.

Study 3 further demonstrates that these inferences are not specific to male observers; female observers are just as likely to pay attention to conversational microdynamics when inferring sexist norms among male students. These findings point to the importance of subtle conversational cues in shaping social norms within specific groups and society in general.

Exploration of the effects on participants’ personal attitudes regarding sexism (Study 1) and their support for gender equality policies (Studies 2 and 3) revealed a somewhat different pattern. Here, we did not find a systematic effect of the responses to the sexist statement. The meta-analysis across studies, moreover, showed that observing a sexist statement, in itself, had only a small and marginally significant effect on sexist attitudes among participants. Thus, overall, there were medium to large effects on norms, and zero to small effects on attitudes. Similar effects have previously been found in within-group discussions about immigration, where strong normative shifts can occur without any corresponding attitude change (Smith & Postmes, 2011). This experimental evidence aligns with opinion polls, which show that despite substantial normative changes in the debate about, for instance, immigration in the US, attitudes on this topic have remained rather stable (e.g., Fussell, 2014). Norm perceptions, as our research confirms, are more subject to change, and important to study considering their influence on, for instance, people’s behaviour and voting (Ahler, 2014; Miller et al., 2000).

The meta-analysis across studies suggests that a single instance of sexism that does not disrupt conversational flow can induce in observers the perception of sexism among the male student population in general. Apparently, inferences about perceived sexism from a small group discussion generalize to inferences about sexism in the wider population (although not to inferences about the appropriateness of such views among the population as a whole). Although we can only speculate about why descriptive population norms might be more affected than injunctive population norms, it could be that the current climate following the #metoo discussions provides many examples for people to imagine situations in which sexism may be inappropriate. The presence of an effect on the generalized descriptive norm, however, suggests that despite the obvious inappropriateness of these sexist views, observers still infer that male students may personally share them.

Whereas our previous research has focused on how flow disruptions signal disagreements, the present research reveals a potentially negative consequence of people’s natural tendency to preserve good and uninterrupted conversational flow. Oftentimes, people are motivated to maintain good relations even when they disagree with their conversation partner. When faced with a sexist expression, receivers may smoothly change topic to avoid further discussion of the sensitive issue, all the while preserving conversational flow. Interestingly, the present findings suggest that such behaviour may encourage the formation and maintenance of sexist norms. Indeed, in the absence of explicit information on receivers’ opinions on the issue, observers may infer that, in fact, the information is consensual and therefore grounded among conversation partners.

Social interactions that are observed by many people, such as those displayed on television, may be particularly influential in transmitting gender norms (Bandura, 2001; Cialdini & Trost, 1998; Signorielli, 1989) simply because they are observed by a large audience (Bandura, 2001; Bryant & Zillmann, 1991). A substantial number of studies has documented the disproportionately high prevalence of gender stereotypic role models and sexist expressions on television (see Furnham & Paltzer, 2010, for a review). Although not much research has focused on the responses to such instances of sexism, the one study that did, documented very clear results: in many cases on prime-time television, bystanders did not respond (39% of the cases) or even responded positively to sexism (27% of the cases; Grauerholz & King, 1997). Without engaging with the consequences of the positive responses, the present research suggests that even the absence of responses could communicate social acceptance of sexist statements on prime-time television.

These findings are particularly interesting when considering that both victims and bystanders are often reluctant to confront sexism (for reviews, see Becker et al., 2014; Drury & Kaiser, 2014). This reluctance is understandable given the consequences that such confrontation (vs. ignoring) may have for female victims, for instance in terms of liking (Dodd et al., 2001) or being viewed as oversensitive, interpersonally cold, or troublemakers (Czopp & Monteith, 2003; Kutlaca et al., 2019). Although research suggests that confronting sexism may be less consequential for male bystanders (Gulker et al., 2013), their fear and stress of negative consequences—such as being disliked—often also lead them to refrain from confrontation (Kawakami et al., 2009). Whereas more research is needed before drawing conclusions about the role of microdynamics within all female, or mixed-gender conversations about sexism, our research is specifically engaged with the consequences of a lack of confrontation among these advantaged, male bystanders (see also Cihangir et al., 2014). In this group, the present study extends the insights into confronting discrimination in two ways: (a) it shows that a failure to confront may not just maintain the status quo, it may shift norms to become even more sexist, (b) but it also provides a relatively noncostly “tool” to prevent such change by communicating one’s disagreement with a brief conversational pause. Disrupting the flow can be a subtle, but quite effective way to signal that a sexist comment may threaten the relationship between speaker and listener, without having to engage in explicit confrontation (Koudenburg, 2018).