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

2. 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

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

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

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

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

7. Stigma Characteristics Dimensions along which stigmas can differ

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

9. Stability Extent to which a stigma can change over time

10. Disruptiveness Extent to which a stigma disrupts social interactions

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

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

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

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

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

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

17. 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

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

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

20. Causes of Dissociation Socially desirable responding Cultural norms

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

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

23. Participants seated in front of machine w/steering wheel attached Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971) -3 -2 0 +1 +2 +3

24. Completed survey about self Rated African Americans on traits by turning wheel -3 (very uncharacteristic) +3 (very characteristic) Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971) -3 -2 0 +1 +2 +3

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

26. 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)

27. Neg. Attributes: Bogus Pipeline Control Happy-go-lucky.93 -.13 Ignorant.60.20 Stupid.13 -1.00 Physically dirty.20 -1.33 Unreliable.27 -.67 Lazy.60 -.73 Aggressive 1.20.67 Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

28. Pos. AttributesBogus PipelineControl Intelligent.00.47 Ambitious.07.33 Sensitive.87 1.60 Bogus Pipeline Study Sigall & Page (1971)

29. Explicit and Implicit Prejudice Explicit MeasuresImplicit Measures Responses more easily modified

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

31. 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

32. 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

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

34. ProtectedUnprotected

35. Measures of Protected Status Denial of prejudice Willingness to derogate publicly

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

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

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

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

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

41. 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

42. 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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

52. 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

53. 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:

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

55. 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

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

57. 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

58. 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”

59. 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

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

61. 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

62. 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”

63. 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

64. 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

65. 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

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

67. 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

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