The Infection of Bad
Company: Stigma-byAssociation
John B. Pryor, Ph.D.
Illinois State University
United States of America
Presentation at the 2008
European Association of Experimental Social Psychology
Opatija, Croatia
My collaborators
•
•
•
•
Glenn D. Reeder
Andrew Monroe
Arati Patel
Briana Muehlbauer
Outline of Today’s Talk
1) What is a stigma? Some basic concepts.
2) A dual process model of reactions to stigma
3) Application of the dual process model to stigma-byassociation effects
4) Study 1: Obese Relatives
5) Study 2: Smoking Friends
6) Study 3: Sitting with Black Guys
7) Conclusions
Goffman (1963) defined stigma as “an
undesired differentness from what we
had anticipated.”
“By definition, we believe the person with
a stigma is not quite human.”
“We construct a stigma-theory, an
ideology to explain his inferiority and
account for the danger he represents,
sometimes rationalizing an animosity
based upon other differences, such as
those of social class (p. 5).”
Erving Goffman (1963) identified
three basic types of stigma:
- abominations of the body
- moral character flaws
- tribal stigmas
an abomination of the body
Persons with Disabilities
an abomination of the body
Persons with HIV/AIDS
an abomination of the body
Obese People
an abomination of the body
Persons with facial dermatitis
blemishes of individual moral
character
Persons with Mental Illness
blemishes of individual moral
character
Homosexual People
blemishes of individual moral
character
Drug addict
blemishes of individual moral
character
Smoker
tribal stigma of race, nation, religion,
family, or other social group
African American
tribal stigma of race, nation, religion,
family, or other social group
Japanese
Korean
tribal stigma of race, nation, religion,
family, or other social group
Muslim cleric
tribal stigma of race, nation, religion,
family, or other social group
Mexican
All of these stigmas evoke negative
implicit attitudes
ABOMINATIONS OF THE BODY
• persons with disabilities (Pruett & Chan, 2006)
• people with AIDS (Neumann, Hulsenbeck, & Seibt, 2004)
• obese persons (Bessenoff & Sherman, 2000; Wang, Brownell, & Wadden,
2004)
• people with facial dermatitis (Grandfield, Thomson, & Turpin, 2005)
MORAL CHARACTER FLAWS
• persons with mental illness (Teachman, Wilson, & Komarovskaya, 2006)
• homosexuals (Jellison, McConnel, & Gabriel, 2004)
• drug abusers (Brener, von Hippel, & Kippax, 2007)
• people who smoke (Pryor, 2007)
TRIBAL STIGMAS
• White Americans have negative implicit attitudes toward Black Americans
(Kawakami, Phills, Steele, & Dovidio, 2007)
• Japanese have negative implicit attitudes toward Koreans and visa versa
(Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998)
• Christians have negative implicit attitudes toward Muslims (Park, Felix, & Lee,
2007)
• Hispanics have negative implicit attitudes toward other Hispanics who have a
darker skin color (Uhlmann, Dasgupta, Elgueta, Greenwald, Swanson, 2002)
A Dual Process Model of
Reactions to Stigmas
Pryor, Reeder, Yeadon, & Hesson-McInnis (2004)
Stigma
Reflexive Processes
evokes Negative
Affective
Reaction
Avoidance
Behavior
A Dual Process Model of
Reactions to Stigmas
Stigma
Reflexive
Processes
Negative
Affective
Reaction
Avoidance
Behavior
Deliberative
Processes
•Attributional
Analyses
•PC concerns
•Ideological
Rationalizations
Positive or
Negative
Affect
Approach
or Avoidance
Behavior
REFLEXIVE PROCESSES
DELIBER ATIVE PROCESSES
Onset
Spontaneous when stigma is
encountered
Requires tim e, motivation, &
cognitive resources
Role of
emotion
Emotions are evoked by the
stigma
Emotions are often negative
(e.g., disgus t, fear, uneasiness,
etc.)
Emotions are the products of
cognitive processes
Emotions may be positive (e.g.,
sympathy) or negative (e.g.,
irritation)
Role of
cognition
Cognitions (e.g., labels) trigge r Attributional cognitions moderate
emotions and motor responses reflexive reactions
Consideration of personal values &
social appropriateness
Characteristic Avoidance
behavior
Approach or avoidance
Pro-social behavior or social
exclusion
Theoretical
origins
Sociali zation
Higher order cognitive processes
Associative learning or
evolved instincts
Pryor, Reeder, Monroe & Patel (in press)
Goffman’s 4th Type of Stigma:
“Courtesy Stigma” or
Stigma-by-Association
Goffman theorized that stigma is spread by
social structure associations. “Thus, the
loyal spouse of a mental patient, the
daughter of an ex-con, the parent of the
cripple, the friend of the blind, the family of
the hangman, are all obliged to share some
of the discredit of the stigmatized person to
whom they are related (p. 30).”
“Sorority Evictions Raise Issue
of Looks and Bias”
“Worried that a negative stereotype of the sorority was
contributing to a decline in membership that had left its
Greek-columned house here half empty, Delta Zeta’s
national officers interviewed 35 DePauw (University)
members in November, quizzing them about their
dedication to recruitment. They judged 23 of the women
insufficiently committed and later told them to vacate the
sorority house. The 23 members included every
woman who was overweight. They also included the
only Korean and Vietnamese members. The dozen
students allowed to stay were slender and popular with
fraternity men — conventionally pretty women the
sorority hoped could attract new recruits.”
Sam Dillon, February 25, 2007
courtesy stigma - acquired through
social structure associations
Spouse of Obese Person
courtesy stigma - acquired through
chosen affiliation
Friend of Smoker
courtesy stigma - acquired through
chosen affiliation
Acquaintance of a Black Man
How does stigma-byassociation work?
automatically evokes
Negative
Affective
Reaction
A Reflexive Process
Three studies, three stigmas:
Obesity
Smoking
Race
Some common elements:
1. Use of Affective Misattribution Procedure
to measure implicit anti-stigma attitudes
2. Measurement of explicit attitudes with
feeling thermometers & Likert scales
3. Measurement of PC concerns
Some hypotheses
• Stigma-by-association effects are driven by
reflexive processes
• The potential for stigma-by-association is
related to the strength of implicit attitudes
evoked by a stigma
• Explicit stigma-related attitudes will not be
connected to stigma-by-association effects
• PC concerns will be connected to explicit, but
not implicit anti-stigma attitudes
Study 1: Obese Relatives
Affective Misattribution Procedure
(AMP): Measuring Implicit Anti-Fat Attitudes
• Before and after photos of 30 women taken
from commercial weight-loss websites
Make rating of
pictograph
before
1 second
1 second
Make rating of
pictograph
after
signal photo
pictograph
rating
Ratings of Chinese Pictographs Following
Photos of Women Before and After Weight Loss
0.7
Pleasantness of
Pleasantness
of
Pictographs
Pictographs
0.6
0.5
0.4
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
After Weight Loss
Before Weight Loss
Preceding Photo
Measures of Explicit Attitudes
• Feeling thermometers (0-100 favorability
ratings)
• Likert Scale (Crandall’s 1994 Anti-Fat
Attitudes Scale) – examples:
– “I really don’t like fat people very much”
– “One of the worst things that could happen to me
would be if I gained 25 pounds”
– “Fat people tend to be fat pretty much through
their own fault.”
conditions
Thin
Relative
Basic Procedure of Photo Rating Task
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
Heavy
Relative
3 sec.
3 sec.
degrees
100°
90°
80°
70°
60°
50°
40°
30°
20°
10°
0°
Extremely attractive
Very attractive
Quite attractive
Fairly attractive
Slightly attractive
Neither attractive nor unattractive
Slightly unattractive
Fairly unattractive
Quite unattractive
Very unattractive
Extremely unattractive
rating
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
degrees
100°
90°
80°
70°
60°
50°
40°
30°
20°
10°
0°
Extremely attractive
Very attractive
Quite attractive
Fairly attractive
Slightly attractive
Neither attractive nor unattractive
Slightly unattractive
Fairly unattractive
Quite unattractive
Very unattractive
Extremely unattractive
32 men were rated in
2 conditions
Relationship of Implicit Anti-Fat Attitudes to
Evaluations of Men with Thin and Fat Relatives
Evaluation of Associated
Men
54
52
50
48
thin relatives
fat relatives
46
44
42
40
- 1 SD AMP
+ 1 SD AMP
Implicit Anti-Fat Bias
Study 2: Smoking Friends
Modified AMP: Measure of Implicit
Attitudes toward Smokers
QuickTime™ and a
TIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
1 second
1 second
a dna ™emiTkciuQ
rosserpmoced )WZL( FFIT
.erutcip siht ees ot dedeen era
signal photo
How pleasant
is the
painting?
abstract painting
How pleasant
is the
painting?
rating
Ratings of Abstract Paintings Following Photos
of Smokers and Non-Smokers
0.4
Pleasantness of
Pleasantness
of
Paintings
Paintings
0.3
0.2
0.1
0
-0.1
non-smokers
-0.2
-0.3
Preceding Photo
smokers
Basic Procedure of Photo Rating Task
Smoker
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
Non-Smoker
2 sec.
2 sec.
degrees
100°
90°
80°
70°
60°
50°
40°
30°
20°
10°
0°
Extremely attractive
Very attractive
Quite attractive
Fairly attractive
Slightly attractive
Neither attractive nor unattractive
Slightly unattractive
Fairly unattractive
Quite unattractive
Very unattractive
Extremely unattractive
rating
POSITIVE
NEGATIVE
degrees
100°
90°
80°
70°
60°
50°
40°
30°
20°
10°
0°
Extremely attractive
Very attractive
Quite attractive
Fairly attractive
Slightly attractive
Neither attractive nor unattractive
Slightly unattractive
Fairly unattractive
Quite unattractive
Very unattractive
Extremely unattractive
•Participants rated the attractiveness of
32 men & 32 women
•Half were accompanied by smokers & half
by non-smokers
Relationship of Implicit Anti-Smoker Attitudes
to Attractiveness Ratings of People
Accompanied by Smokers and Non-Smokers
50
Attractiveness
Attractiveness
49
48
47
Non-Smokers
Smokers
46
45
44
43
-1 SD AMP
+1 SD AMP
Implicit Anti-Smoker Attitudes
Study 3: Sitting with Black
Guys
30 White
Faces
Measuring Implicit Anti-Black
Attitudes with the AMP
Make rating of
pictograph
1 sec
30 Black
Faces
1 sec
Make rating of
pictograph
signal
pictograph
rating
Ratings of Chinese Pictographs following
Photos of White and Black Men
0.45
Pleasantness of
Pleasantness
of
Pictographs
Pictographs
0.4
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.1
0.05
0
Black
White
Preceding Photo
Manipulation of Arbitrary Association
Job candidate seated with a White employee
Job candidate seated with a Black employee
Participants examined application file of applicant for an IT job.
Relationship of Implicit Anti-Black Attitudes to
Hiring Reccommendations to Job Applicants
Arbitrarily Associated with White or Black Men
1
Hiring
Reccommendations
0.8
0.6
0.4
0.2
0
-0.2
-1 SD AMP
+1 SD AMP
-0.4
-0.6
-0.8
-1
-1.2
Implicit Anti-Black Attitudes
White
Black
Correlations of the Implicit Anti-Stigma
Attitude and the Two Explicit Attitude
Measures with Motivation to Control
Correlations with
IMS
0
-0.1
-0.15
-0.03
-0.05
-0.05
-0.13-0.14
-0.2
-0.25
-0.3
*
-0.35
-0.37
-0.4
**
-0.33-0.33
*
-0.38
*
-0.44
-0.45
Obesity
Smokers
Race
Three Stigma Studies
Implicit Attitudes
Feeling Thermometers
Likert Scales
* Significant correlations with explicit attitudes
Correlations Between Explicit Attitude Measures and
Implicit Attitude Measures across Three Studies
0.32
Correlations
0.35
0.3
0.25
0.2
0.15
0.26
*
0.2
*
0.17
0.18
*
*
0.11
0.1
0.05
0
Obesity
Explicit
Measures
Likert Scales
Feeling Thermometers
Smokers
Race
Stigma Studies
Conclusions
•The ability of a stigma to “infect” associated
others is related to the degree to which the
stigma evokes spontaneous affect.
•Stigma-by-association seems to largely
involve reflexive processes.
•The current studies examined individual
differences in implicit attitudes as moderators
of this process. Some stigmas may evoke
spontaneous affect for almost all people.
Stigma-by-association is a
well known phenomenon
• "…and keep them (children) from all ill,
especially the infection of bad company."
John Locke (1632–1704) from Some
Thoughts Concerning Education.
• "Associate yourself with men of good
quality if you esteem your own reputation
for 'tis better to be alone than in bad
company." George Washington (1732 1799)
The infection of bad company?
A silver lining to the dark cloud…
A stigma
automatically
evokes
negative
affect and this
affect spreads
to associated
others
Aarrgg!!