Lecture Outline

1. Lecture Outline • Define Stigma • Stigma classifications and characteristics • Protected and unprotected stigmas • Functions of stigmas in culture • Types of Racism

2. Stigma History of term: • Ancient Greeks • Mark made with burning iron • Identified slaves and criminals

3. Stigma Umbrella term: Refers to many groups • prostitutes • the elderly • the poor • ethnic and racial minorities • lesbians and gays • drug addicts • the homeless……..etc.

4. Stigma Definition: • Consensual beliefs about undesirable attributes or characteristics

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

6. Stigma Classifications Tribal identities: Social groups into which individuals are born • religious groups • ethnic groups • racial groups • national groups

7. Stigma Classifications Abominations of the body: Physical ailments: • deformities • illnesses • paralysis

8. Stigma Classifications Blemishes of individual character: Moral transgressions, or weakness of will: • drug addiction • prostitution • homosexuality • mental illnesses

9. Stigma Characteristics Dimensions along which stigmas can differ

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

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

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

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

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

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

16. What we do know... Stigma characteristics are not all-or-none. • Stigma characteristics vary along a continuum • Any particular stigma can have a stigma characteristic to a greater or lesser extent

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

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

20. 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

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

22. 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

23. Causes of Dissociation • Socially desirable responding • Sigall & Page (1971) • Internalized egalitarian values • Devine (1989) • Cultural norms

24. Protected and Unprotected Stigmas • Societies have rules and norms that influence prejudice • Norms discourage prejudice toward some groups more than others

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

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

27. 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 the obese

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

29. Crandall (1994) Results: • 10% of sample disavowed any prejudice toward African Americans • 3% disavowed any prejudice toward the obese

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

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

32. 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

33. Smith (2001) Some of the groups rated: people with acne white supremacists people with AIDS schizophrenics amputees homosexuals the blind child abusers people with ADHD pedophiles alcoholics gamblers murderers adulterers

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

35. 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

36. Most Comfortable homosexuals prostitutes child abusers Least Comfortable cancer patients people w/leukemia paralyzed people Personal Ratings of Comfort

37. 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 Crandall (1994) & Smith (2001)

38. 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 Madon, Smith, & Guyll (2002)

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

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

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

42. 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 Madon et al. (2002)

43. 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 due to low cognitive resources Madon et al. (2002)

44. 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 Madon et al. (2002)

45. Dual attitudes People may inhibit prejudice toward people with protected stigmas because they take stigma characteristics into account People cannot access stigma charac-teristics during the completion of implicit measures due to low cognitive resources Madon et al. (2002)

46. Procedures: 1. Self-reported prejudice against 4 stigmatized targets threatened vs. comfortable tense vs. calm anxious vs. secure safe vs. scared distressed vs. relaxed Madon et al. (2002)

47. 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 Madon et al. (2002)

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

49. Procedures: 4. Completed the IAT Manipulation: Protected status Protected Unprotected Depressed Prostitute Poor Thief Old Drug addict Homeless Adulterer Madon et al. (2002)

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