1. 1 Lecture Outline nContinue where we left off nDefine Stigma nStigma classifications and characteristics nProtected and unprotected stigmas nFunctions of stigmas in culture nTypes of Racism

2. 2 IAT nThe IAT measures how quickly people can categorize stimulus words. nFaster = stronger association nIAT responses almost never correlate with explicit responses

3. 3 Dissociation Definition: l A lack of correspondence between what people report on explicit measures and how they respond on implicit measures

4. 4 Causes of Dissociation Social desirability: l People may lie on questionnaires to appear unbiased l This would produce dissociation

5. 5 Causes of Dissociation Internalized egalitarian values: l People may have genuinely endorsed egalitarian values, but need cognitive resources to access them l This too would produce dissociation

6. 6 Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 1. Some people have internalized egalitarian values about stigmatized individuals

7. 7 Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 2. These people harbor prejudice, but are not conscious of those feelings i.e., prejudice is unconscious

8. 8 Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 3. Because internalized egalitarian values are newer associations for most people, they require cognitive resources to access; resources that are not available during the completion of implicit measures

9. 9 Internalized Egalitarian Values Logic: 4. Thus, egalitarian values are only accessible during the completion of explicit measures. During the completion of implicit measures, more ingrained prejudiced responses emerge

10. 10 Internalized Egalitarian Values Summary: Internalized egalitarian values explains pattern of dissociation because people…....

11. 11 nEndorse their egalitarian values on explicit measures because of increased cognitive resources But……… nEndorse ingrained prejudice values on implicit measures because of reduced cognitive resources

12. 12 Difference between IEV and SD nPeople who have internalized their egalitarian values truly believe in the validity of their explicit responses whereas people responding in an socially desirable manner do not

13. 13 Devine (1989) Study 1 Purpose: Test whether internalized egalitarian values can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice responses

14. 14 Devine (1989) Study 1 Procedure: nStep 1: Assessed white participants’ prejudice toward African Americans with modern racism scale

15. 15 Devine (1989) Study 1 Procedure: nStep 2: Subliminally primed participants with words associated with African American stereotype Example: poor, lazy, plantation, welfare, athletic, basketball, unemployed

16. 16 Devine (1989) Study 1 Procedure: nStep 3: Participants rated Donald. Donald’s behavior could be construed as aggressive Example: demanded $ back; refused to pay rent until apt. painted

17. 17 Devine (1989) Study 1 Experimental manipulation: nPercent of primes presented 80% of primes associated with AA 20% of primes associated with AA

18. 18 Devine (1989) Study 1 Predictions: 1. Judgments of Donald more hostile in 80% than 20% priming conditions

19. 19 Devine (1989) Study 1 Predictions: 2. Low and high prejudice participants will not differ in their judgments of Donald Primes presented outside of awareness As such, low prejudice people not motivated to control prejudice when rating Donald. Unconscious prejudice dominates

20. 20 Devine (1989) Study 1 Results: 1. Donald rated more hostile in 80% than 20% prime condition 2. Low and high prejudice participants did not differ in how hostile they rated Donald

21. 21 Devine (1989) Study 2 Procedure: 1. Measured prejudice against AA 2. Had participants report beliefs/feelings about AA on self-report measure

22. 22 Devine (1989) Study 2 Result: Low prejudice participants reported less prejudiced beliefs/feelings than high prejudiced participants.

23. 23 Devine (1989) Study 2 Conclusions: A) Low prejudice participants had internalized egalitarian values, and reported those values on explicit measures where cognitive resources were plentiful.

24. 24 Devine (1989) Study 2 Conclusions: B) High prejudice participants had not internalized egalitarian values, and thus showed prejudice on both explicit and implicit measures.

25. 25 Explicit and implicit prejudice may be dissociated because of: l social desirability l internalized egalitarian values

26. 26 Stigma History of term: nAncient Greeks nMark made with burning iron nIdentified slaves and criminals

27. 27 Stigma Umbrella term: Refers to many groups l prostitutes l the elderly l the poor l ethnic and racial minorities l lesbians and gays l drug addicts l the homeless……..etc.

28. 28 Stigma Definition: nConsensual beliefs about undesirable attributes or characteristics

29. 29 Stigma Classifications (Goffman, 1963) 1. Tribal identities 2. Abominations of the body 3. Blemishes of individual character

30. 30 Stigma Classifications Tribal identities: Social groups into which individuals are born Yreligious groups Yethnic groups Yracial groups Ynational groups

31. 31 Stigma Classifications Abominations of the body: Physical ailments: Ydeformities Yillnesses Yparalysis

32. 32 Stigma Classifications Blemishes of individual character: Moral transgressions, or weakness of will: Ydrug addiction Yprostitution Yhomosexuality Ymental illnesses

33. 33 Stigma Characteristics Dimensions along which stigmas can differ

34. 34 Concealibility Extent to which a stigma can be hidden from others

35. 35 Stability Extent to which a can change its course over time (get better, get worse, remain stable)

36. 36 Disruptiveness Extent to which a stigma disrupts or hampers social interactions

37. 37 Aesthetic Qualities Extent to which a stigma makes the person with the stigma physically unappealing to others

38. 38 Responsibility Extent to which a stigmatized person is seen as personally responsible for their stigma

39. 39 Danger Extent to which a stigmatized person is seen as dangerous

40. 40 Stigma Characteristics Very little empirical research on stigma characteristics nThus, we don’t know much about which stigmas are thought to have which characteristics

41. 41 What we do know... Stigma characteristics are not all-or- none. l Stigma characteristics vary along a continuum l Any particular stigma can have a stigma characteristic to a greater or lesser extent

42. 42 What we do know... Stigma characteristics are not mutually exclusive l Any particular stigma can have more than one stigma characteristic

43. 43 What we do know... People can hold different beliefs about a stigma’s characteristics. Example: Some view drug addiction as a weakness of will. Others view it in line with a disease model.

44. 44 Stigma According to Goffman (1963) what is common to all stigmatized social groups is that they are regarded by many as flawed people

45. 45 Research supports Goffman’s definition l Stereotypes about stigmatized groups are negative l Individuals with stigmas are often victims of prejudice and discrimination l People report that they do not emulate, or try to be like, the stigmatized l Stigmatized individuals have worse outcomes than non-stigmatized individuals

46. 46 The Paradox nThe stigmatized are devalued nPrejudice toward the stigmatized has declined over time on self-report measures

47. 47 The Paradox nResearchers have turned to implicit measures of prejudice nPattern of dissociation typical YPeople’s self-reported prejudice does not correlate with their implicit prejudice toward the stigmatized

48. 48 Causes of Dissociation nSocially desirable responding YSigall & Page (1971) nInternalized egalitarian values YDevine (1989) nCultural norms

49. 49 Protected and Unprotected Stigmas nSocieties have rules and norms that influence prejudice nNorms discourage prejudice toward some groups more than others

50. 50 Protected and Unprotected Stigmas ProtectedUnprotected The protected status of stigmas varies along a continuum

51. 51 Crandall (1994) Purpose: nExamine whether African Americans are more protected from explicit prejudice than the obese

52. 52 Crandall (1994) Participants and procedures: n2,406 participants completed the Modern Racism Scale and the Dislike Scale YMRS: measures prejudice against African Americans YDS: measures prejudice against the obese

53. 53 Crandall (1994) Analyses: nExamined the number of participants who selected the most politically correct responses

54. 54 Crandall (1994) Results: n10% of sample disavowed any prejudice toward African Americans n3% disavowed any prejudice toward the obese

55. 55 Crandall (1994) Conclusion: nAfrican Americans are more protected from prejudice in our culture than are the obese

56. 56 Smith (2001) Purpose: nCompare the protected status of many stigmatized groups

57. 57 Smith (2001) Participants and Procedures: n58 participants indicated: YHow comfortable they personally feel saying or thinking bad things about 41 different groups YPercent of Americans who think it is ok to say or think bad things about 41 different groups

58. 58 Smith (2001) Some of the groups rated: people with acne white supremacists people with AIDSschizophrenics amputeeshomosexuals the blindchild abusers people with ADHDpedophiles alcoholicsgamblers murderersadulterers

59. 59 Smith (2001) Results: 1. High correlation between participants’ own beliefs and their perceptions of American’s beliefs: r =.83

60. 60 Smith (2001) Results: 2. Comfort with prejudice varied across the stigmas l participants felt very comfortable saying or thinking bad things about some groups l but very uncomfortable saying or thinking bad things about other groups

61. 61 Personal Ratings of Comfort Most Comfortable nhomosexuals nprostitutes nchild abusers Least Comfortable n cancer patients n people w/leukemia n paralyzed people

62. 62 Crandall (1994) & Smith (2001) Conclusion: n Cultural norms make people feel more or less comfortable harboring and expressing prejudice toward different stigmatized groups More comfortable = less protected stigma Less comfortable = more protected stigma

63. 63 Cultural norms Once you assume that some groups are more protected than others, it becomes possible that people may take these norms into account when completing explicit measures where they have the cognitive resources with which to consider this information. Cultural norms should not affect implicit prejudice because no cognitive resources with which to take social norms about protection from prejudice into account

64. 64 Madon, Smith, & Guyll (2002) Purpose: 1. Examine whether a stigma’s protected status contributes to the dissociation b/t explicit and implicit prejudice 2. Explore different processes that could produce this effect

65. 65 Madon et al. (2002) Background: n Cultural norms operate at a conscious level

66. 66 Madon et al. (2002) Prediction 1: A stigma’s protected status will influence explicit but not implicit prejudice

67. 67 Madon et al. (2002) Prediction 2: Three different processes could produce that effect Ysocial desirability Yinternalized egalitarian values Ydual attitudes about stigma characteristics

68. 68 Madon et al. (2002) Social desirability : n People may intentionally report less prejudice toward people with protected stigmas to appear consistent with cultural norms n People do not have the cognitive resources to lie on implicit measures

69. 69 Madon et al. (2002) Internalized egalitarian values : n People may inhibit prejudice toward people with protected stigmas because they have internalized the cultural norms that protect these individuals n People cannot access egalitarian values during the completion of implicit measures due to low cognitive resources

70. 70 Madon et al. (2002) Dual attitudes n People can hold implicit and explicit attitudes that are in conflict n Implicit attitudes are ingrained and operate under cognitive load n Explicit attitudes are new associations and operate when resources are more plentiful n Explicit attitudes take into account explanations/justifications for one’s attitude

71. 71 Madon et al. (2002) Dual attitudes n People may inhibit prejudice toward people with protected stigmas because they take stigma characteristics into account n People cannot access stigma charac- teristics during the completion of implicit measures due to low cognitive resources

72. 72 Madon et al. (2002) Procedures : 1. Self-reported prejudice against 4 stigmatized targets Ythreatened vs. comfortable Ytense vs. calm Yanxious vs. secure Ysafe vs. scared Ydistressed vs. relaxed

73. 73 Madon et al. (2002) Procedures : 2. Rated each stigma’s characteristics: l Danger posed by the stigma l Person’s responsibility for the stigma l Reflection of underlying character l Stability of the stigma

74. 74 Madon et al. (2002) Procedures : 3. Completed surveys that assessed: l social desirability l internalized egalitarian values

75. 75 Madon et al. (2002) Procedures : 4. Completed the IAT Manipulation: Protected status Protected Unprotected DepressedProstitute PoorThief OldDrug addict Homeless Adulterer

76. 76 Madon et al. (2002) Explicit Prejudice Effect of protected status on explicit prejudice Result: more prejudice shown toward targets with unprotected than protected stigmas, on explicit measures

77. 77 Madon et al. (2002) Implicit Prejudice Effect of protected status on implicit prejudice Result: similar prejudice shown toward unprotected and protected stigmas on the IAT, which measured implicit prejudice

78. 78 Madon et al. (2002) nAs predicted, protected status influenced explicit, but not implicit prejudice.

79. 79 Madon et al. (2002) nSocial desirability could not explain the effect of protected status nInternalized egalitarian values could not explain the effect of protected status nDual attitudes could…………….

80. 80 Madon et al. (2002) Stigma characteristics reduced the effect of protected status on explicit prejudice by this much: l Danger: 55% l Character: 38% l Responsibility: 15% l Stability: 0%

81. 81 Functions of Stigmas Stigmas are ubiquitous This has led researchers to propose that stigmas serve a function

82. 82 Functions of Stigmas nSelf-enhancement function nSocial identity function nSystem justification function nTerror management function

83. 83 Self-Enhancement Function Based on Downward Comparison Theory nStigmatizing and denigrating out- groups make individuals feel better about themselves (Fein & Spencer, 1997)

84. 84 Self-Enhancement Function Limitations: ncannot explain consensual nature of stigmas ncannot explain why the stigmatized devalue their own group

85. 85 Social Identity Theory Born out of the minimal group paradigm Assumptions: npeople naturally categorize others into in/out groups ncategorization creates a social identity npeople want to be in groups held in high esteem npeople sustain positive identity by derogating out- groups

86. 86 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:

87. 87 Social Identity Theory Limitations: ncannot explain why the stigmatized devalue their own group

88. 88 Clark & Clark (1939) Demonstrates how the stigmatized come to devalue their own group Participants: 253 African American children s3 to 7 years old sFrom Arkansas and Massachusetts

89. 89 Clark & Clark (1939) Procedure: nPresented with 4 dolls Y2 were brown with black hair Y2 were white with yellow hair nChildren asked questions

90. 90 Clark & Clark (1939) Example questions: nIdentify actual color of doll “Give me the brown doll” “Give me the white doll”

91. 91 Clark & Clark (1939) Example questions: nIdentify racial identity of doll “Give me the doll that looks like an African American child” “Give me the doll that looks like a White child”

92. 92 Clark & Clark (1939) Example questions: nIdentify child’s racial identity “Give me the doll that looks like you”

93. 93 Clark & Clark (1939) Example questions: nPreferences for African American and White dolls “Give me the doll you like best” “Give me the doll that looks bad” “Give me the doll that is a nicer color”

94. 94 Clark & Clark (1939) Results: Children correctly identified the doll’s color l 94% gave the white doll when asked l 93% gave the brown doll when asked

95. 95 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

96. 96 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

97. 97 Clark & Clark (1939) Results: Children devalued their 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

98. 98 Clark & Clark (1939) Conclusion: Stigmatized groups sometimes devalue themselves SIT cannot explain this phenomenon

99. 99 System Justification Theory Assumptions: ngroup inequalities exist in every society nadvantaged groups derogate stigmatized groups to justify whey they have more njustifications show how the system is fair

100. 100 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

101. 101 System Justification Theory Social Dominance theory is an outgrowth of system justification theory Premise: group based inequalities must be legitimized to reduce intergroup conflict

102. 102 Social Dominance Theory Prediction: Societies reduce intergroup conflict by: ncreating consensus on ideologies that promote the superiority of one group over another Thus, ideology maintains and explains group inequality Example...

103. 103 Social Dominance Theory Ideology: nU.S. is a meritocracy where talent and hard work will out This ideology attributes poverty to lack of merit and justifies why the rich have more than the poor

104. 104 System Justification Theory: nstigmas explain and justify group inequality Social Dominance Theory: njustification for group inequality are widely accepted in a culture njustification for group inequality reduce intergroup conflict

105. 105 Social Justification and Dominance Theories Limitations : ncannot explain social revolutions by stigmatized groups that initially heighten intergroup conflict

106. 106 Terror Management Assumptions: npeople are aware of their own mortality and painful events nthese realizations create overwhelming anxiety npeople buffer this anxiety by subscribing to a cultural view that provides order & meaning to an otherwise random world

107. 107 Terror Management Stigmatization serves to reject those who are different and who violate and challenge cultural views

108. 108 Types of Racism nModern (Symbolic) Racism nAversive Racism

109. 109 Modern (Symbolic) Racism Premise: People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized Yharbor prejudice Ybelieve racism and discrimination are wrong

110. 110 Modern (Symbolic) Racism Modern racists are caught between: nThe prejudice they feel nThe egalitarian values they espouse Not consciously aware of prejudice

111. 111 Modern (Symbolic) Racism Modern racism comes out in disguised form -- i.e., conservative values l Protestant work ethnic l opposition to affirmative action Conservative values serve to keep disadvantaged groups disadvantaged

112. 112 Aversive Racism Premise: Also proposes that people: 1. feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized Yharbor prejudice Yendorse egalitarian values that oppose racism and discrimination 2. are not typically conscious of prejudice

113. 113 Modern vs. Aversive Racism But, for aversive racists, egalitarian values are stronger ……..

114. 114 Modern vs. Aversive Racism Aversive racists… nendorse liberal values nsuppress prejudice when it becomes conscious

115. 115 Modern and Aversive Racism Modern and Aversive racists show their prejudice on implicit behaviors that are outside of their control

116. 116 Modern and Aversive Racism Both Modern and Aversive Racism can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice How do they do this?

117. 117 Modern and Aversive Racism nNot aware of prejudice on conscious level nAccess egalitarian values when cognitive resources are plentiful, and report low prejudice nIngrained prejudice accessed on implicit measures