MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort

Facing Cancelation: Bias Confrontation Strategy Impacts Interpersonal Perceptions and Behaviors

2025· article· en· W4416001180 on OpenAlexaffabout
Michael G. Rosenblum, Zachariah Berry, Juliana Schroeder, Rajen Anderson, Krishnan Padmakumari Sivaraman Nair, Maryam Kouchaki, Samantha Martinez, Erin Frey, Scott S. Wiltermuth, Gabrielle Adams, Rachael Goodwin, Samantha Dodson, Kristina A. Diekmann

Bibliographic record

VenueAcademy of Management Proceedings · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldSocial Sciences
TopicSexual Assault and Victimization Studies
Canadian institutionsUniversity of Calgary
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPrejudice (legal term)Interpersonal communicationPerceptionPoliticsMisconductPower (physics)Sexual misconduct

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Four talks explore antecedents and consequences of various prejudice confrontation strategies, for the victims, offenders, and observers. The first talk explores the political divide in rank-and-file employee support for psychological safety in organizations, which has implications for support for organizational policies aimed at confronting prejudice and maintaining organizational psychological safety. The next talk describes how two common confrontation strategies, calling in versus canceling an offender, can affect organizational psychological safety and resulting employee voice. The third talk explores how, when, and why high-profile people make professional comebacks following their cancelations, and finds that such individuals attempt to destigmatize themselves by testing the waters for a comeback in several distinct ways. Finally, the fourth talk discusses how perceived power is impacted when harassers apologize (vs. deny) their sexual misconduct and demonstrates how perpetrator apologies can shift power from the perpetrator to the victim and impact willingness to advocate for the victim. Together, these talks highlight potentially unexpected consequences and tradeoffs to various methods of confronting prejudice. Political Ideology, Purpose of Business Beliefs, & Support for Psychological Safety Author: Rajen Anderson; University of Leeds Author: Krishnan Nair; Boise State University Author: Maryam Kouchaki; Northwestern University Confronting Workplace Prejudice: Calling In Increases Psychological Safety More Than Canceling Author: Michael Rosenblum; Author: Zachariah Berry; University of Southern California Author: Juliana Schroeder; University of California Berkeley Shifting the Spotlight: How Workers Attempt Comebacks After Public Stigmatization Author: Samantha Martinez; Author: Erin Frey; Yale University Author: Gabrielle Adams; University of Virginia Author: Scott Wiltermuth; University of Southern California Transferring Powerfrom the Victimizer to the Victimized Author: Rachael Goodwin; Not Associated Author: Samantha Dodson; University of Calgary Author: Kristina Diekmann; The University of Utah

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame distilled prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.000
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.000
Version: codex-gemma-dda1882f352aValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Observational · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: Empirical
Teacher disagreement score0.422
Threshold uncertainty score0.316

Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.000
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0000.000
Open science0.0000.000
Research integrity0.0000.000
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0000.000

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.058
GPT teacher head0.381
Teacher spread0.323 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designObservational
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes2
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same venueAcademy of Management ProceedingsSame topicSexual Assault and Victimization StudiesFrench-language works237,207