"Some people will tell jokes to you; some people be racist:" A mixed-method examination of racist jokes and adolescents' well-being

This study examined how adolescents make meaning of racist jokes and their impact on daily well-being using a sequential mixed-methods research design with interview (N = 20; 60% girls, 5% gender-nonconforming; 45% Asian American, 40% Latina/o/x, 10% Black, 5% biracial/multiethnic) and daily diary data (N = 168; 54% girls; 57% Latina/o/x, 21% biracial/multiethnic, 10% Asian American, 9% White, 4% Black). Qualitative results revealed that racist jokes were common, distinct from other overt forms of discrimination, and perceived as harmless when perpetrated by friends. Quantitatively, approximately half of adolescents reported hearing at least one racist joke during the study period, and racist jokes by friends were associated with higher daily angry, anxious, and depressed moods and stress. Racist jokes by known others and strangers were also significantly associated with poorer well-being, although less consistently. Findings highlight the hidden harmful effects of racist jokes on adolescents' daily mood and stress.

Effects of Humor and Bystander Gender on Responses to Antigay Harassment

Individuals perceived to be LGBTQ+ are at risk for harassment. Although bystanders who confront harassers and support targets of harassment may promote inclusivity, the use of humor to express antigay harassment may inhibit prosocial bystander intervention. Non-LGBTQ+ undergraduates (N = 326) were randomly assigned to respond to a scenario in which a male peer disparaged another peer with antigay comments involving either the presence or absence of humor. Results showed that bystanders reported less intent to intervene in the presence of humor than in its absence. Bystander gender moderated perceptions of humorous harassing speech but not intent to intervene. In the presence of humor, men but not women perceived antigay harassment as more amusing; they also perceived the harassing peer more favorably. To promote ally behavior, bystander education may explicitly address critical thinking about the functions and effects of disparaging humor.

Adolescents' Judgment of Homophobic Name-Calling: The Role of Peer/Friend Context and Emotional Response

Adolescents use some types of homophobic language (e.g., "that's so gay") as a form of banter, while other types are directly targeted as an intentional insult (e.g., calling someone a "fag, dyke, homo"). Little research has investigated adolescents' use and judgments about these types of homophobic language and whether judgments differ if they are used among friends or directed toward non-friend peers. This study investigated how relationship context and victim's (N = 477, M_age = 14.7, SD = 1.63) emotional responses related to judgments about anti-gay banter and homophobic name-calling. Adolescents evaluated homophobic name-calling as more wrong than anti-gay banter. While adolescents' evaluations of homophobic name-calling did not differ based on relationship context, adolescents did differentiate between anti-gay banter perpetrated by a friend vs. a peer. Further, emotional responses mediated these relationships in the anti-gay banter situation. These results suggest that adolescents' judgments about homophobic language are related to the relationship context and the type of homophobic language used.

Not Taking a Joke: The Influence of Target Status, Sex, and Age on Reactions to Workplace Humor

The current study tasked undergraduates with serving as hypothetical human resource workers to evaluate complaints of offensive and inoffensive humor used by male and female employees in a fictitious company who varied in employment status and age. Offensive humor was deemed more problematic in its usage, particularly among female perceivers. Contrary to hypotheses, its usage was more problematic for male and older employees than for female and younger employees. In addition, participants were more averse to both offensive and inoffensive humor from high-status and older men relative to women with similar characteristics. We frame results with consideration of recent social trends.

Racismo e Políticas Afirmativas: Evidências do Modelo da Discriminação Justificada

RESUMO O Modelo da Discriminação Justificada postula que o uso de justificativas exerce um importante papel na compreensão da discriminação. No presente estudo, testamos o MDJ no contexto da discriminação a estudantes que ingressaram na universidade por cotas raciais. Participaram do estudo 182 estudantes universitários, em sua maioria mulheres, que ingressaram na universidade pela ampla concorrência. Os participantes responderam a medidas de preconceito, de discriminação, de percepção de ameaça real e foram alocados em uma de três condições experimentais: valorização das cotas, ameaça real e controle. Verificou-se que a percepção de ameaça real exerceu um papel de mediação na relação entre preconceito e discriminação, independente da condição experimental, indicando o potencial explicativo do MDJ para compreensão da discriminação a cotistas.

Joking about ourselves: Effects of disparaging humor on ingroup stereotyping

In three studies, we examined whether ingroup disparaging humor leads to greater stereotyping of the ingroup. First, in Study 1, ( N = 101) university students were exposed to (a) ingroup disparaging humor, (b) neutral humor, or (c) ingroup disparaging nonhumorous text. Participants exposed to disparaging humor reported more stereotypic evaluations than those in the neutral humor or disparaging text condition. Study 2 ( N = 167) replicated these findings with humor conditions (disparaging vs. neutral) and showed that ingroup identification moderated the effects of the type of humor. Low identifiers exposed to ingroup disparaging humor (vs. those in the control condition) reported a greater frequency of stereotypic evaluations, whereas the manipulation did not affect high identifiers. Finally, Study 3 ( N = 153) also manipulated the source of the jokes. As in Study 2, we found an interaction effect showing that high identifiers were not affected by the manipulation, whereas for low identifiers disparaging humor increased stereotyping and led to more negative emotions toward the ingroup. No significant effects were found for source of the jokes. We discuss findings in terms of how the traditional pattern of humor facilitating outgroup stereotyping also seems to apply to ingroup stereotyping.

Putting the brakes on prejudice rebound effects: An ironic effect of disparagement humor

When people high in prejudice censor prejudice in one setting, they can experience a prejudice rebound effect-subsequently responding with more prejudice than otherwise. Disparagement humor fosters the release rather than suppression of prejudice. Thus, two experiments tested the hypothesis that exposure to disparagement humor attenuates rebound effects. Participants suppressed prejudice by writing fewer anti-gay thoughts about same-sex adoption (Experiment 1) or by reporting greater support for same-sex civil rights (Experiment 2) when expecting to share their responses with others (non-prejudice norm condition) but not if others first exchanged anti-gay jokes (prejudice norm condition). High-prejudice participants then exhibited prejudice rebound in the non-prejudice norm condition only. They rated a gay man more stereotypically (Experiment 1) and allocated greater budget cuts to a gay student organization (Experiment 2) in the non-prejudice norm condition.