1. 1 Lecture Outline nDefine Stigma nStigma classifications and characteristics nProtected and unprotected stigmas nFunctions of stigmas in culture nTypes of Racism

2. 2 Stigma History of term: nAncient Greeks nMark made with burning iron nIdentified slaves and criminals

3. 3 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.

4. 4 Stigma Definition: nConsensual beliefs about undesirable attributes or characteristics

5. 5 Stigma Classifications (Goffman, 1963) 1. Tribal identities 2. Abominations of the body 3. Blemishes of individual character

6. 6 Stigma Classifications Tribal identities: Social groups into which individuals are born Yreligious groups Yethnic groups Yracial groups Ynational groups

7. 7 Stigma Classifications Abominations of the body: Physical ailments: Ydeformities Yillnesses Yparalysis

8. 8 Stigma Classifications Blemishes of individual character: Moral transgressions, or weakness of will: Ydrug addiction Yprostitution Yhomosexuality Ymental illnesses

9. 9 Stigma Characteristics Dimensions along which stigmas can differ

10. 10 Concealibility Extent to which a stigma can be hidden from others

11. 11 Stability Extent to which a can change its course over time (get better, get worse, remain stable)

12. 12 Disruptiveness Extent to which a stigma disrupts or hampers social interactions

13. 13 Aesthetic Qualities Extent to which a stigma makes the person with the stigma physically unappealing to others

14. 14 Responsibility Extent to which a stigmatized person is seen as personally responsible for their stigma

15. 15 Stigma Characteristics Very little empirical research on stigma characteristics nThus, we don’t know much about which stigmas are thought to have which characteristics

16. 16 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

17. 17 What we do know... Stigma characteristics are not mutually exclusive l Any particular stigma can have more than one stigma characteristic

18. 18 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.

19. 19 Stigma According to Goffman (1963) what is common to all stigmatized social groups is that they are regarded by many as flawed people

20. 20 Research supports Goffman’s (1963): 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

21. 21 The Paradox nThe stigmatized are devalued nPrejudice toward the stigmatized has declined over time on self-report measures

22. 22 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

23. 23 Causes of Dissociation nSocially desirable responding YSigall & Page (1971) nInternalized egalitarian values YDevine (1989) nCultural norms

24. 24 Protected and Unprotected Stigmas nSocieties have rules and norms that influence prejudice nNorms discourage prejudice toward some groups more than others

25. 25 Protected and Unprotected Stigmas ProtectedUnprotected The protected status of stigmas varies along a continuum

26. 26 Crandall (1994) Purpose: nExamine whether African Americans are more protected from explicit prejudice than the obese

27. 27 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

28. 28 Crandall (1994) Analyses: nExamined the number of participants who selected the most politically correct responses

29. 29 Crandall (1994) Results: n10% of sample disavowed any prejudice toward African Americans n3% disavowed any prejudice toward the obese

30. 30 Crandall (1994) Conclusion: nAfrican Americans are more protected from prejudice in our culture than are the obese

31. 31 Smith (2001) Purpose: nCompare the protected status of many stigmatized groups

32. 32 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

33. 33 Smith (2001) Some of the groups rated: people with acne white supremacists people with AIDSschizophrenics amputeeshomosexuals the blindchild abusers people with ADHDpedophiles alcoholicsgamblers murderersadulterers

34. 34 Smith (2001) Results: 1. High correlation between participants’ own beliefs and their perceptions of American’s beliefs: r =.83

35. 35 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

36. 36 Personal Ratings of Comfort Most Comfortable nhomosexuals nprostitutes nchild abusers Least Comfortable n cancer patients n people w/leukemia n paralyzed people

37. 37 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

38. 38 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

39. 39 Madon et al. (2002) Background: n Cultural norms operate at a conscious level

40. 40 Madon et al. (2002) Prediction 1: A stigma’s protected status will influence explicit but not implicit prejudice

41. 41 Madon et al. (2002) Prediction 2: Three different processes could produce that effect Ysocial desirability Yinternalized egalitarian values Ydual attitudes about stigma characteristics

42. 42 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

43. 43 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

44. 44 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

45. 45 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

46. 46 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

47. 47 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

48. 48 Madon et al. (2002) Procedures : 3. Completed surveys that assessed: l social desirability l internalized egalitarian values

49. 49 Madon et al. (2002) Procedures : 4. Completed the IAT Manipulation: Protected status Protected Unprotected DepressedProstitute PoorThief OldDrug addict Homeless Adulterer

50. 50 Madon et al. (2002) Explicit Prejudice Effect of protected status on explicit prejudice Result: more prejudice shown toward targets with unprotected than protected status on explicit measures

51. 51 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

52. 52 Madon et al. (2002) nAs predicted, protected status influenced explicit, but not implicit prejudice.

53. 53 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…………….

54. 54 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%

55. 55 Functions of Stigmas Stigmas are ubiquitous This has led researchers to propose that stigmas serve a function

56. 56 Functions of Stigmas nSelf-enhancement function nSocial identity function nSystem justification function nTerror management function

57. 57 Self-Enhancement Function Based on Downward Comparison Theory nStigmatizing and denigrating out- groups make individuals feel better about themselves (Fein & Spencer, 1997)

58. 58 Self-Enhancement Function Limitations: ncannot explain consensual nature of stigmas ncannot explain why the stigmatized devalue their own group

59. 59 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

60. 60 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:

61. 61 Social Identity Theory Limitations: ncannot explain why the stigmatized devalue their own group

62. 62 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

63. 63 Clark & Clark (1939) Procedure: nPresented with 4 dolls Y2 were brown with black hair Y2 were white with yellow hair nChildren asked questions

64. 64 Clark & Clark (1939) Example questions: nIdentify actual color of doll “Give me the brown doll” “Give me the white doll”

65. 65 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”

66. 66 Clark & Clark (1939) Example questions: nIdentify child’s racial identity “Give me the doll that looks like you”

67. 67 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”

68. 68 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

69. 69 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

70. 70 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

71. 71 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

72. 72 Clark & Clark (1939) Conclusion: Stigmatized groups sometimes devalue themselves SIT cannot explain this phenomenon

73. 73 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

74. 74 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

75. 75 System Justification Theory Social Dominance theory is an outgrowth of system justification theory Premise: group based inequalities must be legitimized to reduce intergroup conflict

76. 76 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...

77. 77 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

78. 78 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

79. 79 Social Justification and Dominance Theories Limitations : ncannot explain social revolutions by stigmatized groups that initially heighten intergroup conflict

80. 80 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

81. 81 Terror Management Stigmatization serves to reject those who are different and who violate and challenge cultural views

82. 82 Types of Racism nModern (Symbolic) Racism nAversive Racism

83. 83 Modern (Symbolic) Racism Premise: People feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized Yharbor prejudice Ybelieve racism and discrimination are wrong

84. 84 Modern (Symbolic) Racism Modern racists are caught between: nThe prejudice they feel nThe egalitarian values they espouse Not consciously aware of prejudice

85. 85 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

86. 86 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

87. 87 Modern vs. Aversive Racism But, for aversive racists, egalitarian values are stronger ……..

88. 88 Modern vs. Aversive Racism Aversive racists… nendorse liberal values nsuppress prejudice when it becomes conscious

89. 89 Modern and Aversive Racism Modern and Aversive racists show their prejudice on implicit behaviors that are outside of their control

90. 90 Modern and Aversive Racism Both Modern and Aversive Racism can explain the dissociation between explicit and implicit prejudice How do they do this?

91. 91 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