Lecture Outline Define Stigma Stigma classifications and characteristics Dissociation Functions of...

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 identities2. Abominations of the

body3. Blemishes of

individual character


Tribal identities:

Social groups into which individuals are born

religious groupsethnic groupsracial groupsnational groups


Abominations of the body:

Physical ailments:deformitiesillnessesparalysis


Blemishes of individual character:

Moral transgressions, weakness of will:

drug addictionprostitutionhomosexualitymental 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 StudySigall & Page (1971)

-3

-1

-2

0+1

+2

+3

Completed survey about selfRated African Americans on

traits by turning wheel

-3 (very uncharacteristic)+3 (very characteristic)


-3

-1

-2

0+1

+2

+3


Manipulation

Bogus pipeline group

Control group

If people lie on self-report measures to appear unbiased then….

Attributes

Negative Positive

Bogus Pipeline > Control Control > Bogus

Pipeline


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


Pos. Attributes Bogus PipelineControl

Intelligent .00 .47Ambitious .07 .33Sensitive .87 1.60


Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Explicit Measures Implicit Measures

Responses more easily

modified

Explicit and Implicit Prejudice

Explicit Measures Implicit Measures

More vulnerable to

social desirability

Taxonomy of prejudice measures Maass, Castelli & Arcuri (2000)

Controlling Responses Easy

DifficultOld fashioned racism

Open discrim

ination

Racial slurs

Modern racism

Subtle prejudice scale

Seating distance

Subtle language bias

Eye contact

Non-verbal behaviors

Who-said-w

hat

Fam

ous person task

Implicit association test

Stroop-like task

RT

following prim

ing

Physiological reactions

IAT: Implicit Association Test

The IAT measures RT: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

Protected Status

Protected Unprotected

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


Crandall (1994)

2,406 participants

Modern Racism ScaleMeasures prejudice against

African Americans

Dislike ScaleMeasures prejudice against the

obese


Crandall (1994)

Percent Disavowing Prejudice Against:

African Americans

10%

Obese

3%

Derogation StudySmith (2001)

Purpose:

Examine willingness to derogate various stigmatized groups

Derogation Study Smith (2001)

Participants indicated:

How comfortable they personally feel saying or thinking bad things about 41 different groups


Some of the groups rated:

people with acne white supremacists

people with AIDS schizophrenicsamputees homosexualsthe blind child abuserspeople with ADHD pedophilesalcoholics gamblersmurderers adulterers

Most Comfortable

homosexualsprostitutes

child abusers

Least Comfortable

cancer patientspeople

w/leukemiaparalyzed

people


Willingness to derogate varied across the stigmas

Protected Status StudyMadon, Smith, & Guyll (in press)

Purpose:

1. Test whether protected status contributes to dissociation b/t explicit and implicit prejudice

Protected Status StudyMadon et al. (in press)

Cultural norms operate at a conscious level


Prediction:

A stigma’s protected status will influence explicit but not implicit prejudice


1. Self-reported prejudice against stigmatized targets (Explicit Prejudice)

2. Completed IAT (Implicit Prejudice)


Manipulation: Protected status

Protected Unprotected Depressed Prostitute Poor Thief Old Drug addict Homeless Adulterer

Protected Status Study

Madon et al. (in press)

2.00

2.50

3.00

3.50

4.00

4.50

5.00

Protected Status Unprotected Status

Expli

cit P

rejud

ice

Result: More prejudice against targets with unprotected than protected stigmas on explicit measures

Protected Status Study

Madon et al. (in press)

0.00

0.20

0.40

0.60

Protected Status Unprotected Status

Impli

cit Pr

ejudic

e

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-Enhancement

Self-Devaluation Study

Clark & Clark (1939)

253 African American children

Presented with 4 dolls2 brown with black hair2 white with yellow hair

Children asked questions



Identify actual color of doll

Example questions:

“Give me the brown doll”

“Give me the white doll”



Result:Children correctly

identified the doll’s color

93% gave the brown doll when asked

94% gave the white doll when asked



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”



Results:Children able to identify the

doll’s racial identity

93% gave the brown doll when asked for the one that looked like an African American child

93% gave white doll when asked for the one that looked like a White child



Identify child’s racial identity

Example questions:

“Give me the doll that looks like you”



Results:Children not as good at

identifying their own racial identity

66% gave the brown doll when asked which looked like them

33% gave the white doll when asked which looked like them



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”



Results:Children devalued own

racial identity:

66% liked the white doll best

59% said the brown doll looked bad

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


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


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

Lecture Outline Define Stigma Stigma classifications and characteristics Dissociation Functions of...

Documents

Transcript of Lecture Outline Define Stigma Stigma classifications and characteristics Dissociation Functions of...