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
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

Purpose:
Crandall (1994)
 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 the obese
27

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 white supremacists schizophrenics homosexuals child abusers people with ADHD pedophiles alcoholics gamblers murderers 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 Least Comfortable
 homosexuals
 prostitutes
 child abusers
 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

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 due to low cognitive resources 43

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

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
Depressed
Poor
Old
Homeless
Unprotected
Prostitute
Thief
Drug addict
Adulterer
49

5.00
4.50
4.00
3.50
3.00
2.50
2.00
Column 1
Protected Status Unprotected Status
Result: more prejudice shown toward targets with unprotected than protected status on explicit measures
50

0.60
0.40
0.20
Column 1
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 outgroups 59

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
White child”
65

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