The Psychology of Social Stigma
Psychology 309
Fall 2015
Tuesday & Thursday 2:40 - 4:00p.m.
Instructor: Dr. Clara Wilkins
Location: WYL115
Email: clwilkins@wesleyan.edu
Office: 400 Judd Hall
Office hours: Tuesday 1:20- 2:20 & by appointment
COURSE DESCRIPTION
This seminar aims to introduce students to theoretical and empirical social psychological
research on prejudice and social stigma. The topics covered will include examinations of why
individuals stigmatize: exploring cognitive, evolutionary, self, and system justification
explanations. The course will examine the effects of stigmatization for low status groups
(stereotype threat, dis-identification, compensation and health outcomes). We will explore the
role of stigma in intergroup interactions and variation in the experience of stigma. Finally, we
will examine perceptions of bias from the perspective of high status groups (e.g. perceptions of
anti-white discrimination).
REQUIREMENTS
Prerequisites: PSYC101 or 105 and PSYC260 (no exceptions)
Course reading: Course reading can be found on the course moodle.
Attendance and Participation:
Participation and attendance is a critical aspect of this course. You are expected to attend each
class and to arrive on time. You should come to class having completed all of the readings.
Importantly, students should contribute to the group without dominating discussion and should
help create a climate in which others can comfortably share their opinions.
Cell phones and laptops. Part of participation involves being actively involved in discussion,
which is difficult to do with digital distractions. I ask that students refrain from using cell phones
or laptops in class. Exceptions will be made for students with special learning or disability needs.
It is the policy of Wesleyan University to provide reasonable accommodations to students with
documented disabilities. Students, however, are responsible for registering with Disabilities
Services, in addition to making requests known to me in a timely manner. If you require
accommodations in this class, please make an appointment with me as soon as possible [by the
1
2nd week of the semester], so that appropriate arrangements can be made. The procedures for
registering with Disabilities Services can be found at
http://www.wesleyan.edu/studentaffairs/disabilities/index.html.
Reaction papers: (out of 5 points)
A short reaction paper (1-2 pages typed, double-spaced, hardcopy) is due at the beginning of
class Thursdays (see schedule below). You are required to complete 4 out of the possible 5
options. These reaction papers should integrate readings for Tuesday and Thursday of each week
(unless otherwise stated). Ideally these reaction papers also situate the readings in the broader
context of the course (or other social psychological concepts). See “potential discussion points”
section for ideas about what to write. If you must miss class on a day assignments are due, please
email the assignment to me by the start of the regularly scheduled class time. If you cannot email
me the assignment before the start of class, it will be counted as late (see details below).
Reaction Paper Grading Scale
Reaction papers will be graded out of 5 points using the following scale:
  5 points = excellent (clearly written, creative/novel analyses)
  4 points = very good (clean writing, mastery of material with thoughtful analysis)
  3 points = good (clear understanding of material)
  2 points = acceptable (somewhat thin or contains significant errors)
  1 point = marginally acceptable (very thin or contains major errors)
  0 points = not turned in
Final Paper/ research proposal:
At the end of the semester, students will write a final paper/ research proposal related to social
stigma. See “final paper format” section below.
EVALUATION
20% Class participation and attendance
5% Discussion questions
40% Reaction papers (4 total)
35% Final paper
Discussion:
Students will sign up to take turns providing questions for class discussion. These questions
should be open-ended and should stimulate discussion for each assigned reading. A copy of these
questions should be provided to me on your assigned discussion day.
Late Policy: Late reactions papers will only be accepted through the end of the day (5pm) on
Saturday of the week they are due. Each day the assignment is late, 10% will be subtracted. Late
papers should be emailed to me.
No late final papers will be accepted. (Exceptions made for documented emergencies)
HONOR CODE -- Please read the Wesleyan Honor Code and abide by it closely (a copy is
2
posted at http://www.wesleyan.edu/studentaffairs/honorboard/honorcode.html). All papers, and
presentations for this class must be original -- not reprinted, excerpted, or adapted from existing
work (e.g., papers for other classes, books, articles, web pages). If you are unclear about how
to reference something, please ask.
CLASS FORMAT
The reading will be reviewed during the first part of the class period. Discussion leaders will
then present discussion questions to the class.
SCHEDULE
(schedule and assigned readings may be modified)
Study outline for final paper due Tuesday, December 1st.
Final Paper due Tuesday, December 15th.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 1: September 8th & 10th
Introduction/ What is social stigma?
Tuesday: Introductions
Thursday:
Dovidio, J. F., Major, B., & Crocker, J. (2000). Stigma: Introduction and overview. In
Heatherton, Kleck, Hebl, & Hull (Eds.) The social psychology of stigma. (pp. 1-9).
New York: Guilford.
Major, B., & O’Brien, L.T. (2005). The social psychology of stigma. Annual Review of
Psychology, 56, 393-421.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 2: September 15th & 17th
Why do we stigmatize?
Tuesday:
Kurzban, R., & Leary, M. R. (2001). Evolutionary origins of stigmatization: The functions of
social exclusion. Psychological Bulletin, 127, 187-208.
Jost, J. T. & Hunyady, O. (2002). The psychology of system justification and the palliative
function of ideology. European Review of Social Psychology, 13, 111-153.
Thursday: Rxn due
Greenberg, J., Simon, L., Pyszcynski, T., Solomon, S., & Chatel, D. (1990). Evidence for terror
management theory II: The effects of mortality salience on reactions to those who threaten or
bolster the cultural worldview. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 308-318.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 3: September 22nd & 24th
Why we stigmatize (continued) and invisible stigmas
3
Tuesday:
Eidelman, S., & Crandall, C. S. (2012). Bias in favor of the status quo. Social and Personality
Psychology Compass, 6(3), 270-281.
Fein, S., & Spencer, S. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self through
derogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73, 31-44.
Thursday:
Frable, D.E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-perceptions:
Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74, 909-922.
Sibicky, M., & Dovidio, J.D. (1986). Stigma of psychological therapy: Stereotypes, interpersonal
reactions, and the self-fulfilling prophecy. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 33, 148-154
Cole, S.W., Kemeny, M.E., Taylor, S.E., Visscher, B.R. & Fahey, J.L. (1996). Accelerated
course of human immunodeficiency virus infection in gay men who conceal their homosexual
identity. Psychosomatic Medicine, 58, 219-231.
Optional
Johnson, K. L., Gill, S., Reichman, V., & Tassinary, L. G. (2007). Swagger, sway, and sexuality:
Judging sexual orientation from body motion and morphology. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 93, 321–334.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 4: September 29th & October 1st
Gender and weight stigma
Tuesday: (in class watch: http://news.wustl.edu/news/Pages/11287.aspx)
Rudman, L. A., & Glick, P. (2001). Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic
women. Journal of Social Issues, 57, 743-762.
Heilman, M.E., Wallen, A. S., & Fuchs, D. (2004). Penalties for success: Reactions to women
who succeed at male gender-typed tasks. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89, 416-427.
Thursday: Rxn due
http://nyti.ms/1azD4xD
http://www.nytimes.com/2014/09/07/upshot/a-child-helps-your-career-if-youre-aman.html?smid=nytcore-iphone-share&smprod=nytcore-iphone
Quinn, D.M., & Crocker, J. (1999). When ideology hurts: Effects of belief in the Protestant ethic
and feeling overweight on the psychological well-being of women. Journal of Personality &
Social Psychology, 77, 402-414.
Optional:
Crandall, C.S. (1994). Prejudice against fat people: Ideology and self-interest. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 882-894.
4
__________________________________________________________________
Week 5: October 6th & 8th
Within-group variation in the experience of discrimination
Tuesday:
Maddox, K. B. (2004). Perspectives on racial phenotypicality bias. Personality and Social
Psychology Review, 8, 383−401.h
Eberhardt, J. L., Davies, P. G., Purdie-Vaughns, V. J., & Johnson, S. L. (2006). Looking
deathworthy: Perceived stereotypicality of Black defendants predicts capital-sentencing
outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 383-386.
Livingston, R. and Nicholas P. (2009). The teddy bear effect: Does babyfaceness benefit Black
CEOs?. Psychological Science, 20(10): 1229-1236.
Thursday: (in class play radiolab segment: http://www.radiolab.org/story/304341-allys-choice/)
Kaiser, C. R. & Pratt-Hyatt, J. S. (2009). Distributing prejudice unequally: Do Whites direct their
prejudice toward strongly identified minorities? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
96, 432-445.
Wilkins, C. L., Kaiser, C. R., & Rieck, H. (2010). Detecting racial identification: The role of
phenotypic prototypicality. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46(6), 10291034.
Optional:
Hebl, M.R., Williams, M.J., Sundermann, J.M., Kell, H.J. & Davies, P.G., (2012). Selectively
friending: Racial stereotypicality and social rejection, Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.019
__________________________________________________________________
Week 6: October 13th & 15th
Consequences of social stigma I
Tuesday:
Kaiser, C. R., Vick, S. B., & Major, B. (2006). Prejudice expectations moderate preconscious
attention to cues that are threatening to social Identity. Psychological Science, 17(4), 332-338.
Mendoza-Denton R., Purdie, V.J., Downey, G., Davis, A., Pietrzak, J. (2002). Sensitivity to
status based rejection: implications for African-American students’ college experience. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 896-918.
Williams, D. R. (1999). Race, socioeconomic status, and health: The added effects of racism and
discrimination. Annals New York Academy of Sciences, 173-188.
Thursday: Rxn due
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
5
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.
Miller, C.T., Rothblum, E.D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for stigma: Obese
and nonobese women’s reactions to being visible. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
21, 1093-1106.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 7: October 20th & 22nd
Consequences of social stigma II
Tuesday: (in class stereotype threat video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W2bAlUKtvMk)
Sinclair, S., Huntsinger, J., Skorinko, J. & Hardin, C. (2005). Social tuning of the self: Consequences for
the self-evaluations of stereotype targets, Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89, 160-175.
Steele, C.M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of
African Americans. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 797-811.
Thursday:
Aronson, J., Fried, C.B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African
American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 38, 113-125.
Cohen, G. L., Garcia, J., Apfel, N. & Master, A. (2006). Reducing the racial achievement gap: A
social-psychological intervention. Science, 313, 1307-1310.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 8: October 27th & 29th
Confronting discrimination
Tuesday:
No Class Fall Break
Thursday: rxn due
Kaiser, C.R. & Miller, C.T. (2001). Stop complaining! The social costs of making attributions to
discrimination. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 254-263.
Czopp, A.M., & Monteith, M.J. (2003). Confronting prejudice (literally): Reactions to
confrontations of racial and gender bias. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 29, 532544.
Optional: (more on confronting and reducing sexism)
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1111/josi.2014.70.issue-4/issuetoc
__________________________________________________________________
Week 9: November 3rd & 5th
“Positive” stereotypes and Asian Americans
Tuesday:
6
Complete the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory online (5 min):
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/asi/
Glick, P.M & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism as
complementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109-118.
Czopp, A.M, Kay, A.C., & Cheryan, S. (2015). Positive Stereotypes Are Pervasive and
Powerful. Perspectives on Psychological Science.
Thursday:
Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2005). Where are you really from? Asian Americans and identity
denial. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89(5), 717-730.
Guendelman, M., Cheryan, S., & Monin, B. (2011). Fitting in but getting fat: Identity threat as an
explanation for dietary decline among U.S. immigrant groups. Psychological Science 22(7), 959967.
Optional:
Take an online IAT to measure one of your implicit attitudes:
https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/
Cheryan, S., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual
performance: The psychological hazards of “model minority” status. Psychological Science, 11,
399-402.
Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). American = White?. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 88(3), 447-466.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 10: November 10th & 12th
Intergroup interactions
Tuesday:
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., & Saguy, T. (2009). Commonality and the complexity of “we”:
Social attitudes and social change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 13, 3-20
Tropp, L. R., & Pettigrew, T. F. (2005). Relationships between intergroup contact and prejudice
among minority and majority status groups. Psychological Science, 16, 951-957.
Thursday: Rxn due
(in class watch: http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/tue-august-6-2013/the-r-word)
Bergsieker, H. B., Shelton, J. N., & Richeson, J. A. (2010). To be liked versus respected:
Divergent goals in interracial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99,
248-264.
Schnabel, N., Nadler, A., Ullrich, J., Dovidio, J. F. & Carmi, D. (2009). Promoting reconciliation
through the satisfaction of the emotional needs of victimized and perpetrating group members:
7
The needs-based model of reconciliation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 35, 10211030.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 11: November 17th & 19th
American Indians and colorblindness
Tuesday:
Oyserman, D, Fryberg, S., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1011-1027.
Fryberg, S., Markus, H., Oyserman, D., & Stone, J. (2008). Of warrior chiefs and Indian
princesses: The psychological consequences of American Indian mascots. Basic and Applied
Social Psychology, 30, 208-218.
Optional:
Take the online Native IQ test:
http://www.understandingprejudice.org/nativeiq/
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/11/18/offensive-mascots_n_4277317.html
Thursday:
Holoien, D. S., & Shelton, J. N. (2012). You deplete me: The cognitive costs of colorblindness
on ethnic minorities. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 562-565.
Richeson, J. A., & Nussbaum, R. J. (2004). The impact of multiculturalism versus colorblindness on racial bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 417-423.
Optional:
Apfelbaum, E. P., Norton, M. I., & Sommers, S. R. (2012). Racial colorblindness: Emergence,
practice, and implications. Current Directions in Psychological Science.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 12: November 24th & 26th
Tuesday: No class
Thursday: THANKSGIVING
__________________________________________________________________
Week 13: December 1 st & 3rd
Whites I
Tuesday: Outline for final paper due (Please include: research question, brief background,
study IV and DV; should be around 2 pages)
Small group discussions about final paper
8
Thursday: Stone, J. (2002). Battling doubt by avoiding practice: The effects of stereotype threat
on self-handicapping in white athletes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 16671678.
Lowery, B. S., Knowles, E. D., & Unzueta, M. M. (2007). Framing inequity safely:
Whites' motivated perceptions of racial privilege. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
33(9), 1237-1250.
Lowery, B. S., Unzueta, M. M., Knowles, E. D., & Goff, P. (2006). Concern for the ingroup and opposition to affirmative action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(6),
961-974.
__________________________________________________________________
Week 14: December 8th & 10th
Whites II: perceiving discrimination
Tuesday:
Major, B., Gramzow, R., McCoy, S., Levin, S., Schmader, T., & Sidanius, J. (2002). Perceiving
personal discrimination: The role of group status and status legitimizing ideology. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 8, 269-282.
Unzueta, M. M., Lowery, B. S., & Knowles, E. D. (2008). How believing in affirmative
action quotas protects White men's self-esteem. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision
Processes, 105(1), 1-13.
Thursday: Summary and Connections
Group activity: Choose an issue that affects the Wesleyan community that is related to social
stigma. In groups (of 3-4) discuss the issue and its impact, then come up with an intervention
based on class reading to improve intergroup relations.
__________________________________________________________________
Final paper due Tuesday DECEMBER 15th at 7pm EST
9
POTENTIAL DISCUSSION POINTS FOR REACTION PAPERS
(in no particular order)
1)
3)
4)
5)
6)
7)
8)
9)
Discuss alternative explanations for the findings. Do the explanations provided
by the researchers make sense to you? Are there other explanations that seem
compelling?
What are the strengths and weaknesses of the research both in terms of the
methods and the validity of them?
Under what conditions would different results be found? What are the "boundary
conditions" of these ideas/findings? How might other variables (e.g., race, gender,
status) qualify or change these findings?
Discuss connections across the readings. How does the research that you are
reading relate to previous topics that we have discussed? How are the themes as
represented in these readings similar or different to how they have been presented
in other class readings?
How can these readings be applied to real life? Do they explain why a social
phenomenon or problem exists?
What are the implications of this research -- for social interaction, for personal
relationships, for public policy?
What additional research questions does this work stimulate? What specific
questions need further exploration? How would you test those hypotheses?
What seems important, surprising or interesting to you?
Do NOT summarize the reading as part of your reaction paper. The idea is for you to
provide analysis of the topics.
10
FINAL PAPER FORMAT
The format of your final paper should be as follows.
Abstract: Goal is to provide a brief overview of your paper. It includes your research question,
your methods, results, and implications. It is typically 100 – 200 words long.
Introduction: Goal of intro is to provide justification and background information about why
this research should be conducted.
*Briefly explain the question that your research is addressing.
*Review previous research relevant to your question. Thoughtfully analyze the methods,
findings, and interpretations of previous studies in a way that makes a persuasive argument for
why the study you are proposing is important.
*Provide a general overview of the method you will use to address your question.
*State your hypotheses, along with the conceptual rationale for each.
*State briefly what your proposed research is designed to add to previous research.
Method: Goal is to convey what you would do in your study in enough detail that someone else
could replicate it.
*Describe the sample of participants - e.g., age, sex, race, # of participants and how you will
recruit participants.
*Describe your experimental design.
*Describe procedures in detail. How would you run the study? What measures would you use?
*If you propose to use any questionnaires or measures from previous research, cite the source
and describe the measure: item content and format, instructions to participants, and evidence for
reliability and validity. If you construct your own measure, present the measure either in the text
or in an appendix.
Results: Goal is to clearly & concisely explain what you expect to find.
*Summarize what you expect to find -- you could use tables or graphs, if it is helpful. Present the
results in a way the clearly conveys the expected results. These are hypothetical findings.
*Be clear but concise in explaining the expected results.
Discussion: Goal is to provide an interpretation of your results, suggesting limitations to your
research, and proposing future research directions.
*Summarize your expected findings.
*Discuss the theoretical and applied implications of your findings.
*Discuss how your findings fit with previous research.
*Discuss possible limitations of your study.
*Make suggestions for future research.
Your paper should be 12 -15 pages in length & should follow APA conventions. For some
helpful hints about using APA style, see: http://www.uwsp.edu/psych/apa4b.htm
11