Transcript lecture11.plus10.prejudice.stigma

Lecture Outline
Continue where we left off
Define Stigma
Stigma classifications and characteristics
Protected and unprotected stigmas
Functions of stigmas in culture
Types of Racism
1
IAT
The IAT measures how quickly
people can categorize stimulus
words.
Faster = stronger association
IAT responses almost never
correlate with explicit responses
2
Dissociation
Definition:
A lack of correspondence
between what people report on
explicit measures and how they
respond on implicit measures
3
Causes of Dissociation
Social desirability:
People may lie on questionnaires
to appear unbiased
This would produce dissociation
4
Causes of Dissociation
Internalized egalitarian values:
People may have genuinely
endorsed egalitarian values, but
need cognitive resources to access
them
This too would produce dissociation
5
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Logic:
1. Some people have internalized
egalitarian values about stigmatized
individuals
6
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Logic:
2. These people harbor prejudice, but
are not conscious of those feelings
i.e., prejudice is unconscious
7
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
8
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
9
Internalized Egalitarian Values
Summary: Internalized egalitarian
values explains pattern of
dissociation because people…....
10
Endorse their egalitarian values on
explicit measures because of
increased cognitive resources
But………
Endorse ingrained prejudice values
on implicit measures because of
reduced cognitive resources
11
Difference between IEV and SD
People 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
12
Devine (1989) Study 1
Purpose:
Test whether internalized egalitarian
values can explain the dissociation
between explicit and implicit
prejudice responses
13
Devine (1989) Study 1
Procedure:
Step 1: Assessed white participants’
prejudice toward African Americans
with modern racism scale
14
Devine (1989) Study 1
Procedure:
Step 2: Subliminally primed participants
with words associated with African
American stereotype
Example: poor, lazy, plantation, welfare, athletic,
basketball, unemployed
15
Devine (1989) Study 1
Procedure:
Step 3: Participants rated Donald.
Donald’s behavior could be construed
as aggressive
Example: demanded $ back; refused to pay rent
until apt. painted
16
Devine (1989) Study 1
Experimental manipulation:
Percent of primes presented
•80% of primes associated with AA
•20% of primes associated with AA
17
Devine (1989) Study 1
Predictions:
1. Judgments of Donald more hostile
in 80% than 20% priming conditions
18
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
19
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
20
Devine (1989) Study 2
Procedure:
1. Measured prejudice against AA
2. Had participants report beliefs/feelings
about AA on self-report measure
21
Devine (1989) Study 2
Result:
Low prejudice participants reported less
prejudiced beliefs/feelings than high
prejudiced participants.
22
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.
23
Devine (1989) Study 2
Conclusions:
B) High prejudice participants had not
internalized egalitarian values, and thus
showed prejudice on both explicit and
implicit measures.
24
Explicit and implicit prejudice may be
dissociated because of:
social desirability
internalized egalitarian values
25
Stigma
History of term:
Ancient Greeks
Mark made with burning iron
Identified slaves and criminals
26
Stigma
Umbrella term: Refers to many groups
prostitutes
the elderly
the poor
ethnic and racial minorities
lesbians and gays
drug addicts
the homeless……..etc.
27
Stigma
Definition:
Consensual beliefs about undesirable
attributes or characteristics
28
Stigma Classifications
(Goffman, 1963)
1. Tribal identities
2. Abominations of the body
3. Blemishes of individual character
29
Stigma Classifications
Tribal identities:
Social groups into which individuals
are born
religious groups
ethnic groups
racial groups
national groups
30
Stigma Classifications
Abominations of the body:
Physical ailments:
deformities
illnesses
paralysis
31
Stigma Classifications
Blemishes of individual character:
Moral transgressions, or weakness
of will:
drug addiction
prostitution
homosexuality
mental illnesses
32
Stigma Characteristics
Dimensions along
which stigmas can differ
33
Concealibility
Extent to which a stigma
can be hidden from others
34
Stability
Extent to which a can change
its course over time
(get better, get worse, remain stable)
35
Disruptiveness
Extent to which a stigma disrupts or
hampers social interactions
36
Aesthetic Qualities
Extent to which a stigma makes the
person with the stigma physically
unappealing to others
37
Responsibility
Extent to which a stigmatized
person is seen as personally
responsible for their stigma
38
Danger
Extent to which a stigmatized
person is seen as dangerous
39
Stigma Characteristics
Very little empirical research on stigma
characteristics
Thus, we don’t know much about
which stigmas are thought to have
which characteristics
40
What we do know...
Stigma characteristics are not all-ornone.
Stigma characteristics vary along a
continuum
Any particular stigma can have a
stigma characteristic to a greater or
lesser extent
41
What we do know...
Stigma characteristics are not mutually
exclusive
Any particular stigma can have
more than one stigma characteristic
42
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.
43
Stigma
According to Goffman (1963) what is
common to all stigmatized social
groups is that they are regarded by
many as flawed people
44
Research supports Goffman’s definition
 Stereotypes about stigmatized groups are
negative
 Individuals with stigmas are often victims of
prejudice and discrimination
 People report that they do not emulate, or try to
be like, the stigmatized
 Stigmatized individuals have worse outcomes
than non-stigmatized individuals
45
The Paradox
The stigmatized are devalued
Prejudice toward the stigmatized has
declined over time on self-report
measures
46
The Paradox
Researchers have turned to implicit
measures of prejudice
Pattern of dissociation typical
People’s self-reported prejudice
does not correlate with their
implicit prejudice toward the
stigmatized
47
Causes of Dissociation
Socially desirable responding
Sigall & Page (1971)
Internalized egalitarian values
Devine (1989)
Cultural norms
48
Protected and Unprotected Stigmas
Societies have rules and norms that
influence prejudice
Norms discourage prejudice toward
some groups more than others
49
Protected and Unprotected Stigmas
Protected
Unprotected
The protected status of stigmas
varies along a continuum
50
Crandall (1994)
Purpose:
Examine whether African
Americans are more protected from
explicit prejudice than the obese
51
Crandall (1994)
Participants and procedures:
2,406 participants completed the
Modern Racism Scale and the
Dislike Scale
MRS: measures prejudice
against African Americans
DS: measures prejudice against
52
the obese
Crandall (1994)
Analyses:
Examined the number of
participants who selected the most
politically correct responses
53
Crandall (1994)
Results:
10% of sample disavowed any
prejudice toward African Americans
3% disavowed any prejudice
toward the obese
54
Crandall (1994)
Conclusion:
African Americans are more
protected from prejudice in our
culture than are the obese
55
Smith (2001)
Purpose:
Compare the protected status of
many stigmatized groups
56
Smith (2001)
Participants and Procedures:
58 participants indicated:
How comfortable they personally
feel saying or thinking bad things
about 41 different groups
Percent of Americans who think
it is ok to say or think bad things
about 41 different groups
57
Smith (2001)
Some of the groups rated:
people with acne
people with AIDS
amputees
the blind
people with ADHD
alcoholics
murderers
white supremacists
schizophrenics
homosexuals
child abusers
pedophiles
gamblers
adulterers
58
Smith (2001)
Results:
1. High correlation between participants’
own beliefs and their perceptions of
American’s beliefs: r = .83
59
Smith (2001)
Results:
2. Comfort with prejudice varied across
the stigmas
participants felt very comfortable
saying or thinking bad things about
some groups
 but very uncomfortable saying or
thinking bad things about other
groups
60
Personal Ratings of Comfort
Most Comfortable
homosexuals
prostitutes
child abusers
Least Comfortable
cancer patients
people w/leukemia
paralyzed people
61
Crandall (1994) & Smith (2001)
Conclusion:
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
62
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
63
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
64
Madon et al. (2002)
Background:
Cultural norms operate at a
conscious level
65
Madon et al. (2002)
Prediction 1:
A stigma’s protected status will
influence explicit but not implicit
prejudice
66
Madon et al. (2002)
Prediction 2:
Three different processes could
produce that effect
social desirability
internalized egalitarian values
dual attitudes about stigma
characteristics
67
Madon et al. (2002)
Social desirability:
People may intentionally report less
prejudice toward people with protected
stigmas to appear consistent with cultural
norms
People do not have the cognitive
resources to lie on implicit measures
68
Madon et al. (2002)
Internalized egalitarian values:
People may inhibit prejudice toward
people with protected stigmas because
they have internalized the cultural norms
that protect these individuals
People cannot access egalitarian values
during the completion of implicit measures
69
due to low cognitive resources
Madon et al. (2002)
Dual attitudes
People can hold implicit and explicit
attitudes that are in conflict
Implicit attitudes are ingrained and operate
under cognitive load
Explicit attitudes are new associations and
operate when resources are more plentiful
Explicit attitudes take into account
explanations/justifications for one’s attitude
70
Madon et al. (2002)
Dual attitudes
People may inhibit prejudice toward
people with protected stigmas because
they take stigma characteristics into
account
People cannot access stigma characteristics during the completion of implicit
measures due to low cognitive resources
71
Madon et al. (2002)
Procedures:
1. Self-reported prejudice against 4
stigmatized targets
threatened vs. comfortable
tense vs. calm
anxious vs. secure
safe vs. scared
distressed vs. relaxed
72
Madon et al. (2002)
Procedures:
2. Rated each stigma’s characteristics:
Danger posed by the stigma
Person’s responsibility for the stigma
Reflection of underlying character
Stability of the stigma
73
Madon et al. (2002)
Procedures:
3. Completed surveys that assessed:
social desirability
internalized egalitarian values
74
Madon et al. (2002)
Procedures:
4. Completed the IAT
Manipulation: Protected status
Protected
Depressed
Poor
Old
Homeless
Unprotected
Prostitute
Thief
Drug addict
Adulterer
75
Effect of Madon
protected status
explicit prejudice
et al.on(2002)
Explicit Prejudice
5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
Column 1
3.00
2.50
2.00
Protected Status
Unprotected Status
Result: more prejudice shown toward targets
with unprotected than protected stigmas, on
explicit measures
76
Implicit Prejudice
Effect of Madon
protected status
implicit prejudice
et al.on(2002)
0.60
0.40
Column 1
0.20
0.00
Protected Status
Unprotected Status
Result: similar prejudice shown toward
unprotected and protected stigmas on the IAT,
which measured implicit prejudice
77
Madon et al. (2002)
As predicted, protected status
influenced explicit, but not implicit
prejudice.
78
Madon et al. (2002)
Social desirability could not explain
the effect of protected status
Internalized egalitarian values
could not explain the effect of
protected status
Dual attitudes could……………. 79
Madon et al. (2002)
Stigma characteristics reduced the
effect of protected status on explicit
prejudice by this much:
Danger: 55%
Character: 38%
Responsibility: 15%
Stability: 0%
80
Functions of Stigmas
Stigmas are ubiquitous
This has led researchers to propose
that stigmas serve a function
81
Functions of Stigmas
Self-enhancement function
Social identity function
System justification function
Terror management function
82
Self-Enhancement Function
Based on Downward Comparison
Theory
Stigmatizing and denigrating outgroups make individuals feel better
about themselves (Fein & Spencer, 1997)
83
Self-Enhancement Function
Limitations:
cannot explain consensual nature of
stigmas
cannot explain why the stigmatized
devalue their own group
84
Social Identity Theory
Born out of the minimal group paradigm
Assumptions:
 people naturally 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 out85
groups
Self-Enhancement vs. Social Identity Theory
Self-Enhancement:
Derogate
the stigmatized
Feel good
about oneself
Social Identity Theory:
Derogate
the stigmatized
Feel good
about one’s group
Feel good
about oneself
86
Social Identity Theory
Limitations:
cannot explain why the stigmatized
devalue their own group
87
Clark & Clark (1939)
Demonstrates how the stigmatized
come to devalue their own group
Participants: 253 African American
children
3 to 7 years old
From Arkansas and Massachusetts
88
Clark & Clark (1939)
Procedure:
Presented with 4 dolls
2 were brown with black hair
2 were white with yellow hair
Children asked questions
89
Clark & Clark (1939)
Example questions:
Identify actual color of doll
“Give me the brown doll”
“Give me the white doll”
90
Clark & Clark (1939)
Example questions:
Identify racial identity of doll
“Give me the doll that looks like an
African American child”
“Give me the doll that looks like a
91
White child”
Clark & Clark (1939)
Example questions:
Identify child’s racial identity
“Give me the doll that looks like you”
92
Clark & Clark (1939)
Example questions:
Preferences 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”
93
Clark & Clark (1939)
Results:
Children correctly identified the doll’s color
94% gave the white doll when asked
93% gave the brown doll when asked
94
Clark & Clark (1939)
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
95
Clark & Clark (1939)
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
96
Clark & Clark (1939)
Results:
Children devalued their 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
97
Clark & Clark (1939)
Conclusion:
Stigmatized groups sometimes devalue
themselves
SIT cannot explain this phenomenon
98
System Justification Theory
Assumptions:
group inequalities exist in every society
advantaged groups derogate stigmatized
groups to justify whey they have more
justifications show how the system is fair
99
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
100
System Justification Theory
Social Dominance theory is an outgrowth of
system justification theory
Premise: group based inequalities must be
legitimized to reduce intergroup conflict
101
Social Dominance Theory
Prediction:
Societies reduce intergroup conflict by:
creating consensus on ideologies that
promote the superiority of one group over
another
Thus, ideology maintains and explains group
inequality
Example... 102
Social Dominance Theory
Ideology:
U.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
103
System Justification Theory:
stigmas explain and justify group inequality
Social Dominance Theory:
justification for group inequality are widely
accepted in a culture
justification for group inequality reduce
intergroup conflict
104
Social Justification and Dominance
Theories
Limitations:
cannot explain social revolutions by
stigmatized groups that initially
heighten intergroup conflict
105
Terror Management
Assumptions:
people are aware of their own mortality and
painful events
these realizations create overwhelming
anxiety
people buffer this anxiety by subscribing to
a cultural view that provides order &
meaning to an otherwise random world
106
Terror Management
Stigmatization serves to reject those
who are different and who violate and
challenge cultural views
107
Types of Racism
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Aversive Racism
108
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Premise:
People feel ambivalence toward the
stigmatized
harbor prejudice
believe racism and discrimination
are wrong
109
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Modern racists are caught between:
The prejudice they feel
The egalitarian values they espouse
Not consciously aware of prejudice
110
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Modern racism comes out in disguised
form -- i.e., conservative values
Protestant work ethnic
opposition to affirmative action
Conservative values serve to keep
disadvantaged groups disadvantaged
111
Aversive Racism
Premise: Also proposes that people:
1. feel ambivalence toward the stigmatized
harbor prejudice
endorse egalitarian values that
oppose racism and discrimination
2. are not typically conscious of prejudice
112
Modern vs. Aversive Racism
But, for aversive racists, egalitarian
values are stronger ……..
113
Modern vs. Aversive Racism
Aversive racists…
endorse liberal values
suppress prejudice when it becomes
conscious
114
Modern and Aversive Racism
Modern and Aversive racists show their
prejudice on implicit behaviors that
are outside of their control
115
Modern and Aversive Racism
Both Modern and Aversive Racism can
explain the dissociation between
explicit and implicit prejudice
How do they do this?
116
Modern and Aversive Racism
Not aware of prejudice on conscious level
Access egalitarian values when cognitive
resources are plentiful, and report low
prejudice
Ingrained prejudice accessed on implicit
measures
117