Transcript lecture11.prejudice.stigma

Lecture Outline
Define Stigma
Stigma classifications and characteristics
Protected and unprotected stigmas
Functions of stigmas in culture
Types of Racism
1
Stigma
History of term:
Ancient Greeks
Mark made with burning iron
Identified slaves and criminals
2
Stigma
Umbrella term: Refers to many groups
prostitutes
the elderly
the poor
ethnic and racial minorities
lesbians and gays
drug addicts
the homeless……..etc.
3
Stigma
Definition:
Consensual beliefs about undesirable
attributes or characteristics
4
Stigma Classifications
(Goffman, 1963)
1. Tribal identities
2. Abominations of the body
3. Blemishes of individual character
5
Stigma Classifications
Tribal identities:
Social groups into which individuals
are born
religious groups
ethnic groups
racial groups
national groups
6
Stigma Classifications
Abominations of the body:
Physical ailments:
deformities
illnesses
paralysis
7
Stigma Classifications
Blemishes of individual character:
Moral transgressions, or weakness
of will:
drug addiction
prostitution
homosexuality
mental illnesses
8
Stigma Characteristics
Dimensions along
which stigmas can differ
9
Concealibility
Extent to which a stigma
can be hidden from others
10
Stability
Extent to which a can change
its course over time
(get better, get worse, remain stable)
11
Disruptiveness
Extent to which a stigma disrupts or
hampers social interactions
12
Aesthetic Qualities
Extent to which a stigma makes the
person with the stigma physically
unappealing to others
13
Responsibility
Extent to which a stigmatized
person is seen as personally
responsible for their stigma
14
Stigma Characteristics
Very little empirical research on stigma
characteristics
Thus, we don’t know much about
which stigmas are thought to have
which characteristics
15
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
16
What we do know...
Stigma characteristics are not mutually
exclusive
Any particular stigma can have
more than one stigma characteristic
17
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.
18
Stigma
According to Goffman (1963) what is
common to all stigmatized social
groups is that they are regarded by
many as flawed people
19
Research supports Goffman’s (1963):
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
20
The Paradox
The stigmatized are devalued
Prejudice toward the stigmatized has
declined over time on self-report
measures
21
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
22
Causes of Dissociation
Socially desirable responding
Sigall & Page (1971)
Internalized egalitarian values
Devine (1989)
Cultural norms
23
Protected and Unprotected Stigmas
Societies have rules and norms that
influence prejudice
Norms discourage prejudice toward
some groups more than others
24
Protected and Unprotected Stigmas
Protected
Unprotected
The protected status of stigmas
varies along a continuum
25
Crandall (1994)
Purpose:
Examine whether African
Americans are more protected from
explicit prejudice than the obese
26
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
27
the obese
Crandall (1994)
Analyses:
Examined the number of
participants who selected the most
politically correct responses
28
Crandall (1994)
Results:
10% of sample disavowed any
prejudice toward African Americans
3% disavowed any prejudice
toward the obese
29
Crandall (1994)
Conclusion:
African Americans are more
protected from prejudice in our
culture than are the obese
30
Smith (2001)
Purpose:
Compare the protected status of
many stigmatized groups
31
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
32
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
33
Smith (2001)
Results:
1. High correlation between participants’
own beliefs and their perceptions of
American’s beliefs: r = .83
34
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
35
Personal Ratings of Comfort
Most Comfortable
homosexuals
prostitutes
child abusers
Least Comfortable
cancer patients
people w/leukemia
paralyzed people
36
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
37
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
38
Madon et al. (2002)
Background:
Cultural norms operate at a
conscious level
39
Madon et al. (2002)
Prediction 1:
A stigma’s protected status will
influence explicit but not implicit
prejudice
40
Madon et al. (2002)
Prediction 2:
Three different processes could
produce that effect
social desirability
internalized egalitarian values
dual attitudes about stigma
characteristics
41
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
42
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
43
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
44
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
45
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
46
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
47
Madon et al. (2002)
Procedures:
3. Completed surveys that assessed:
social desirability
internalized egalitarian values
48
Madon et al. (2002)
Procedures:
4. Completed the IAT
Manipulation: Protected status
Protected
Unprotected
Depressed
Poor
Old
Homeless
Prostitute
Thief
Drug addict
Adulterer
49
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 status on
explicit measures
50
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
51
Madon et al. (2002)
As predicted, protected status
influenced explicit, but not implicit
prejudice.
52
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……………. 53
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%
54
Functions of Stigmas
Stigmas are ubiquitous
This has led researchers to propose
that stigmas serve a function
55
Functions of Stigmas
Self-enhancement function
Social identity function
System justification function
Terror management function
56
Self-Enhancement Function
Based on Downward Comparison
Theory
Stigmatizing and denigrating outgroups make individuals feel better
about themselves (Fein & Spencer, 1997)
57
Self-Enhancement Function
Limitations:
cannot explain consensual nature of
stigmas
cannot explain why the stigmatized
devalue their own group
58
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 out59
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
60
Social Identity Theory
Limitations:
cannot explain why the stigmatized
devalue their own group
61
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
62
Clark & Clark (1939)
Procedure:
Presented with 4 dolls
2 were brown with black hair
2 were white with yellow hair
Children asked questions
63
Clark & Clark (1939)
Example questions:
Identify actual color of doll
“Give me the brown doll”
“Give me the white doll”
64
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
65
White child”
Clark & Clark (1939)
Example questions:
Identify child’s racial identity
“Give me the doll that looks like you”
66
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”
67
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
68
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
69
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
70
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
71
Clark & Clark (1939)
Conclusion:
Stigmatized groups sometimes devalue
themselves
SIT cannot explain this phenomenon
72
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
73
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
74
System Justification Theory
Social Dominance theory is an outgrowth of
system justification theory
Premise: group based inequalities must be
legitimized to reduce intergroup conflict
75
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... 76
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
77
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
78
Social Justification and Dominance
Theories
Limitations:
cannot explain social revolutions by
stigmatized groups that initially
heighten intergroup conflict
79
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
80
Terror Management
Stigmatization serves to reject those
who are different and who violate and
challenge cultural views
81
Types of Racism
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Aversive Racism
82
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Premise:
People feel ambivalence toward the
stigmatized
harbor prejudice
believe racism and discrimination
are wrong
83
Modern (Symbolic) Racism
Modern racists are caught between:
The prejudice they feel
The egalitarian values they espouse
Not consciously aware of prejudice
84
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
85
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
86
Modern vs. Aversive Racism
But, for aversive racists, egalitarian
values are stronger ……..
87
Modern vs. Aversive Racism
Aversive racists…
endorse liberal values
suppress prejudice when it becomes
conscious
88
Modern and Aversive Racism
Modern and Aversive racists show their
prejudice on implicit behaviors that
are outside of their control
89
Modern and Aversive Racism
Both Modern and Aversive Racism can
explain the dissociation between
explicit and implicit prejudice
How do they do this?
90
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
91