Janet Kay Swim:  Description of Research

My research focuses on prejudice, stereotyping, and intergroup relationships. My early research addressed the perceiver’s perspective, that is, the person who holds prejudicial or stereotyped beliefs. I examined the use of information about another person’s gender in judgments, the accuracy of gender stereotypes, and modern sexist beliefs (see Swim & Campbell, 2001 for a review). In recent years I have added explicit consideration of the target’s perspective on intergroup relationships, that is, the perspective of a person who is the target of a perceiver’s prejudicial or stereotyped beliefs. My research concerns how people come to decide that they or others have been targets of prejudice or discrimination, the consequences of being a target of discrimination or recognizing others’ experience with discrimination, and how people cope with the experience of being a target of prejudice. My work addresses being a target of sexism, racism, and heterosexism.

The experience of being a target of prejudice. My work has shown that a complete understanding of intergroup relationships requires examining both those who hold prejudicial or stereotypical beliefs and those who are the targets of these beliefs (Swim & Stangor, 1998; Oyserman & Swim, 2001). My diary studies on everyday experiences with discrimination provide a fuller description of current everyday manifestations of prejudice as well as the subjectivity of such perceptions (Swim, Hyers, Cohen, & Ferguson, 2001; Swim, Hyers, Cohen, Fitzgerald, & Bylsma, 2003; Swim, Pearson, & Johnston, under review). In these studies people report experiencing, on average about one to two experiences with discrimination per week. These experiences range from blatant expressions of prejudice and stereotypes to more subtle forms of discrimination (i.e., behaviors that often go unnoticed or are disregarded because they are seen as normal parts of everyday life). Although these experiences can have cumulative negative impact on psychosocial wellbeing, just as daily hassles adversely affect well-being, their immediate influence is on target’s mood states (specifically anger and anxiety) and collective self-esteem, more so than their personal state self-esteem.

Identification of prejudice and discrimination. One central element to being a target of discrimination is deciding whether to attribute another person’s behavior to discrimination and/or prejudice. My colleagues and I proposed that there are three stages in identifying particular incidents as discriminatory (see Stangor, Swim, Sechirst, DeCoster, & VanAllen, 2003, for a review). This model was the basis for a funded NSF grant. First, one notices and questions whether a particular incident is discriminatory. This step is a function of the accessibility of the concept of discrimination (Pearson, 2003). Next, affective (e.g., mood; Sechrist, Swim, & Mark, 2003), cognitive (e.g., information about an actor’s intent and the harm experienced by a target; Swim, Scott, Sechrist, Campbell, & Stangor, 2003), and motivational processes (e.g., need for control; Sechrist, Swim, & Stangor, under review) influence one’s private attributions to discrimination. Third, interpersonal and intrapersonal motivations influence desire and willingness to publicly state one’s personal opinion that an actor was prejudiced or an action discriminatory (e.g.,Stangor, Swim, Van Allen, & Sechrist, 2001; Sechrist et al. under review; Swim & Hyers, 1999; Swim, Pearson, Chua, & Stangor, under review; Swim, Quinlivin, Ferguson, & Eysell, under review ). An implication of this model is that people could appear to agree that an incident was not discriminatory, but this appearance would be for different reasons (the concept was not accessible; the person decided the incident was discriminatory; or the person did not tell anyone of their opinion). A related implication is that the repercussions of not identifying discrimination would differ depending upon why an incident was not identified as discrimination (Sechrist & Swim, under review).

I am currently beginning a set of studies on judgments about whether particular people are prejudiced rather than whether particular behaviors are discriminatory. In our past research we have found that people are more likely to label a behavior as discriminatory than a person as prejudiced. However, the two are closely linked. I am interested in testing whether variables that should theoretically lead to more accurate impression of others affects judgments of prejudice.

Coping with discrimination. Coping with discrimination is a central part of stigmatized individuals everyday life. My colleagues and I have been interested in responses that people may use prior to and during an incident to prevent the occurrence of being a target of discrimination, such as avoidance and compensatory behavior (Cohen & Swim, 1995; Mallett & Swim, 2004). We have also considered responses people may give after an incident, such as confronting (Swim & Hyers, 1999) or self-silencing (Swim, Quinliven, Ferguson, & Eysell, under review). Our work on public identification of discrimination, noted above, also addresses issues related to confronting discrimination. Drawing from research in Health Psychology, we have been interested in how people’s coping appraisals, such as response efficacy and self-efficacy, can influence their selection of responses (Mallett & Swim, 2004; Swim, Pearson, & Johnston, under review; Swim & Gula, in preparation). Related to coping with discrimination, I am beginning a line of research that looks at the development of racial identity in transracially adopted children. Racial identity has been associated with self-protection from racism and positive well-being in minority children. However, transracially adopted children face challenges in developing a minority identity because of their family, and often, neighborhood contexts.

Group-Based Guilt. Given my long term interest in in people’s definitions and awareness of current manifestations of prejudice and discrimination (e.g., Swim, Aiken, Hall, & Hunter, 1996), I have begun to examine the implications of becoming aware of the prevalence of prejudice and discrimination, particularly for those who are advantaged by prejudice and discrimination (Mallett & Swim, in press). Group-based guilt (aka collective guilt) is the emotional response that a person may feel in response to inequality that advantages members of one’s social group. One need not feel personally responsible for the advantages in order to feel group-based guilt. Rather, believing that one’s group has certain privileges due to membership in the group, not endorsing prejudicial beliefs, attributing responsibility to one’s group for the sources and maintenance of the advantages, and not perceiving the differences are not justifiable are all associated with group-based guilt (Swim & Miller, 1999; Mallett & Swim, 2004). This group-based guilt has implications for how one responds to inequality in terms of engaging in collective action to aid the outgroup, (Mallett, Huntsinger, & Swim, under review) and support for remediation policies (e.g., Swim & Miller, 1999; Mallett & Swim, under review).