Confront in public, validate in private: Effective male allyship responses to sexist remarks.

Knowing how to respond to sexist comments and counteract their harmful consequences remains a challenging task for male allies. In this mixed-methods research, our preregistered qualitative study of 82 male leaders from the United States (Study 1) reveals that most intend to confront perpetrators of sexist remarks, with a preference for doing so privately rather than publicly; relatively few intend to validate the experiences of harmed targets. We contend that allies need to consider actions beyond confrontation-a response commonly recommended by scholars and in practice-as well as appropriate social contexts for these allyship behaviors to ensure the inclusion of women who are directly harmed by such remarks. We hypothesize that targets' sense of belonging and voice intentions are optimally supported when allies not only (a) confront transgressors' sexist remarks in public (vs. private) but also (b) validate targets' harmed experiences in private (vs. public). Three preregistered and one complementary experimental studies (Studies 2-4; N = 1,216 U.S. women) from the perspective of women support our theory. Our findings suggest that confrontation should be enacted in public because it directly reinforces gender civility norms, whereas validation is better provided in private to demonstrate concern for dignity. In our final study (Study 5; N = 253 U.S. men), we provide critical insights into how public confrontation-targets' preferred response-might adversely influence the attitudes and behaviors of confronted perpetrators (e.g., bias regulation). By incorporating multiparty perspectives, our research provides actionable recommendations for potential allies, especially men in leadership roles. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2026 APA, all rights reserved).