Lecture Outline Define Stigma Stigma classifications and characteristics Dissociation Functions of stigmas in culture

Stigma Consensual beliefs about undesirable attributes or characteristics prostitutes the elderly the homeless drug addicts homosexuals the ugly anorexics the disabled paralyzed people people with deformities racial minorities the obese

Stigma Classifications (Goffman, 1963) 1. Tribal identities 2. Abominations of the body 3. Blemishes of individual character

Stigma Classifications (Goffman, 1963) Tribal identities: Social groups into which individuals are born  religious groups  ethnic groups  racial groups  national groups

Stigma Classifications (Goffman, 1963) Abominations of the body: Physical ailments:  deformities  illnesses  paralysis

Stigma Classifications (Goffman, 1963) Blemishes of individual character: Moral transgressions, weakness of will:  drug addiction  prostitution  homosexuality  mental illnesses

Stigma Characteristics Dimensions along which stigmas can differ

Concealibility Extent to which a stigma can be hidden from others

Stability Extent to which a stigma can change over time

Disruptiveness Extent to which a stigma disrupts social interactions

Aesthetic Qualities Extent to which a stigma is physically unappealing to others

Responsibility Extent to which a stigmatized person is seen as personally responsible for their stigma

What we do know... Stigma characteristics are not all-or-none

What we do know... Stigma characteristics are not mutually exclusive

What we do know... People can hold different beliefs about a stigma’s characteristics

Stigma According to Goffman (1963): Stigmatized groups regarded by many as flawed

People report that they do not emulate, or try to be like, the stigmatized Stereotypes about stigmatized groups are negative Individuals with stigmas are victims of prejudice, discrimination, hate crimes

The Paradox The stigmatized are devalued Self-reported prejudice has declined over time

Dissociation Lack of association between explicit self- reports and implicit measures of bias

Causes of Dissociation Socially desirable responding Cultural norms

Causes of Dissociation: Social Desirability People lie about their prejudiced to appear unbiased to others

Bogus Pipeline An experimental paradigm Experimenter claims to have access (a pipeline) to participants’ true reactions

Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

Completed survey about self Rated African Americans on traits by turning wheel -3 (very uncharacteristic) +3 (very characteristic) Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971) Manipulation Bogus pipeline group Control group

If people lie on self-report measures to appear unbiased then…. Attributes Negative Positive Bogus Pipeline > ControlControl > Bogus Pipeline Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

Neg. Attributes: Bogus Pipeline Control Happy-go-lucky Ignorant Stupid Physically dirty Unreliable Lazy Aggressive Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

Pos. AttributesBogus PipelineControl Intelligent Ambitious Sensitive Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit MeasuresImplicit Measures Responses more easily modified

Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit MeasuresImplicit Measures More vulnerable to social desirability

Taxonomy of prejudice measures Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000) Controlling Responses Easy Difficult Old fashioned racism Open discrimination Racial slurs Modern racism Subtle prejudice scale Seating distance Subtle language bias Eye contact Non-verbal behaviors Who-said-what Famous person task Implicit association test Stroop-like task RT following priming Physiological reactions

IAT: Implicit Association Test The IAT measures RT: l how quickly people categorize stimulus words. Faster RT = stronger association IAT responses correlate mildly with explicit responses

Causes of Prejudice: Cultural Norms Cultural Norms Comfort expressing prejudice Protected Status

ProtectedUnprotected

Measures of Protected Status Denial of prejudice Willingness to derogate publicly

Denial of Prejudice Study Crandall (1994) Purpose: Examined denial of prejudice against African Americans & obese

Denial of Prejudice Study Crandall (1994) 2,406 participants Modern Racism Scale  Measures prejudice against African Americans Dislike Scale  Measures prejudice against the obese

Denial of Prejudice Study Crandall (1994) Percent Disavowing Prejudice Against: African Americans 10% Obese 3%

Derogation Study Smith (2001) Purpose: Examine willingness to derogate various stigmatized groups

Derogation Study Smith (2001) Participants indicated: sHow comfortable they personally feel saying or thinking bad things about 41 different groups

Derogation Study Smith (2001) Some of the groups rated: people with acnewhite supremacists people with AIDSschizophrenics amputeeshomosexuals the blindchild abusers people with ADHDpedophiles alcoholicsgamblers murderersadulterers

Most Comfortable homosexuals prostitutes child abusers Least Comfortable cancer patients people w/leukemia paralyzed people Derogation Study Smith (2001) Willingness to derogate varied across the stigmas

Protected Status Study Madon, Smith, & Guyll (in press) Purpose: 1. Test whether protected status contributes to dissociation b/t explicit and implicit prejudice

Protected Status Study Madon et al. (in press) Cultural norms operate at a conscious level

Protected Status Study Madon et al. (in press) Prediction: A stigma’s protected status will influence explicit but not implicit prejudice

Protected Status Study Madon et al. (in press) 1. Self-reported prejudice against stigmatized targets (Explicit Prejudice) 2. Completed IAT (Implicit Prejudice)

Protected Status Study Madon et al. (in press) Manipulation: Protected status Protected Unprotected DepressedProstitute PoorThief OldDrug addict Homeless Adulterer

Protected Status Study Madon et al. (in press) Result: More prejudice against targets with unprotected than protected stigmas on explicit measures

Protected Status Study Madon et al. (in press) Result: Similar prejudice against targets with unprotected and protected stigmas on implicit measure

Functions of Stigmas Self-enhancement function Social identity function System justification function Terror management function

Self-Enhancement Function Based on Downward Comparison Theory Stigmatizing out-groups make people feel better about themselves

Social Identity Theory Assumptions: People categorize others into in/out groups Categorization creates a social identity People want to be in groups held in high esteem People sustain positive identity by derogating out-groups

Self-Enhancement vs. Social Identity Theory Self-Enhancement: Derogate the stigmatized Feel good about oneself Derogate the stigmatized Feel good about oneself Feel good about one’s group Social Identity Theory:

Self-Enhancement & Social Identity Functions Social Identity Limitations Consensual nature Self-devaluation of stigmas Self-Enhancement

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) 253 African American children Presented with 4 dolls  2 brown with black hair  2 white with yellow hair Children asked questions

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Identify actual color of doll Example questions: “Give me the brown doll” “Give me the white doll”

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Result: Children correctly identified the doll’s color l 93% gave the brown doll when asked l 94% gave the white doll when asked

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Identify racial identity of doll Example questions: “Give me the doll that looks like an African American child” “Give me the doll that looks like a White child”

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Results: Children able to identify the doll’s racial identity l 93% gave the brown doll when asked for the one that looked like an African American child l 93% gave white doll when asked for the one that looked like a White child

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Identify child’s racial identity Example questions: “Give me the doll that looks like you”

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Results: Children not as good at identifying their own racial identity l 66% gave the brown doll when asked which looked like them l 33% gave the white doll when asked which looked like them

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Identify racial preference Example questions: “Give me the doll you like best” “Give me the doll that looks bad” “Give me the doll that is a nicer color”

Self-Devaluation Study Clark & Clark (1939) Results: Children devalued own racial identity: l 66% liked the white doll best l 59% said the brown doll looked bad l only 38% said the brown doll was a nice color

System Justification Theory Assumptions: Group inequalities in every society Advantaged groups derogate stigmatized groups to justify why they have more Justifications show how the system is fair

System Justification Theory Through system justification people: 1. Come to believe that they deserve their privilege 2. The system under which their culture operates is fair 3. Perception of fairness reduces intergroup conflict

Limitations : Cannot explain social revolutions that initially heighten intergroup conflict System Justification Theory

Terror Management Function Assumptions: People are aware of their own mortality This awareness creates anxiety People protect self from this anxiety by subscribing to a cultural view that provides order & meaning to an otherwise random world

Terror Management Stigmatization serves to reject those who are different and who violate and challenge cultural views