Matching choices to avoid offending stigmatized group members

People (selectors) sometimes make choices both for themselves and for others (recipients). We propose that selectors worry about offending recipients with their choices when recipients are stigmatized group members and options in a choice set differ along a stigma-relevant dimension. Accordingly, selectors are more likely to make the same choices for themselves and stigmatized group member recipients than non-stigmatized group member recipients. We conducted eight studies to study this hypothesis in different choice contexts (food, music, games, books) and with recipients from different stigmatized groups (the obese, Black-Americans, the elderly, students at lower-status schools). We use three different approaches to show that this effect is driven by people’s desire to avoid offending stigmatized group members with their choices. Thus, although prior research shows that people often want to avoid being associated with dissociative groups, such as stigmatized groups, we demonstrate that people make the same choices for self and stigmatized other to minimize offense.     

The effect of feeling stereotyped on social power and inhibition

An experience sampling study examined the degree to which feeling stereotyped predicts feelings of low power and inhibition among stigmatized and nonstigmatized individuals. For 7 days, participants with a concealable (gay and lesbian), a visible (African American), or no identifiable stigma recorded feelings of being stereotyped, of powerlessness, and of inhibition immediately following social interactions. For members of all three groups, feeling stereotyped was associated with more inhibition, and this relation was partially mediated by feeling low in power. Although stigmatized participants reported feeling stereotyped more often than nonstigmatized participants, they reacted less strongly to the experience, consistent with the presence of buffering mechanisms developed by those living with stigma. African Americans appeared to buffer the impact of feeling stereotyped more effectively than gay and lesbian participants, an effect that was partly attributable to African Americans' higher identity centrality.     

Complaining about a compliment: Evaluating attributions of positive outcomes to discrimination

People evaluate stigmatized group members negatively when they attribute negative personal outcomes to discrimination, even when discrimination is the likely cause. The present studies examined whether similar interpersonal costs exist for attributing a positive personal outcome to discrimination in the context of positive stereotypes. In Study 1, 129 participants read an excerpt written by an Asian student who attributed an unexpectedly high essay grade to discrimination, writing quality, or easy grading. Participants evaluated the student least favourably when he attributed the positive outcome to discrimination. In Study 2, 140 participants evaluated a successful Asian job applicant less favourably than a successful, white applicant, although both applicants attributed the positive outcome to group membership. The implications for how stigmatized group members perceive and respond to prejudice and discrimination are discussed.     

Group membership influences social control of perpetrators of uncivil behaviors

The present research examined bystanders' reactions to uncivil behaviors. We tested a proposed mediator of the effect by which bystanders are more likely to exert social control over in‐group compared to out‐group members. Participants were asked to report their likely reaction if they were to witness a woman throwing a plastic bottle into a flowerbed. Participants reported that they were more likely to express their disapproval to the woman if she was an in‐group rather than an out‐group member. This effect was mediated by the moral emotions that participants expected the woman to feel if they were to intervene: Participants expected the woman to feel more embarrassment and shame when she was an in‐group member, and this explained why they were more likely to exert social control toward an in‐group member than an out‐group member. Copyright © 2009 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Cumulative consequences of stigma: Possessing multiple concealable stigmatized identities is associated with worse quality of life

Large health disparities exist between stigmatized and nonstigmatized groups. In addition to experiencing and anticipating greater discrimination, members of stigmatized groups also tend to demonstrate greater ruminative tendencies in response, which may lead to these poor health outcomes. Even among stigmatized groups, differences in the visibility of stigma lead to different mechanisms through which stigma takes its toll. Previous work has primarily focused on the impact of belonging to a single marginalized group; however, people often belong to multiple marginalized groups, and this likely affects both their health outcomes and their anticipation of stigma. In the current study, we focused on individuals with concealable stigmatized identities (CSIs)—socially stigmatized identities that are not immediately apparent to others—and created a measure of concealable marginalization that captures multiple group memberships. We predicted that those possessing a greater number of CSIs would anticipate more stigma from others, and, in turn, ruminate more about the stigma, which would negatively impact the health. Surveying N = 288 adults with CSIs, we found that possessing a greater number of marginalized concealable identities predicted worse self-reported physical quality of life. These relationships were partially mediated by greater anticipated stigma and brooding rumination in regard to their CSI. This work illuminates a more complete picture of how living with CSIs can take its toll on health.     

The negative impact of perceiving discrimination on collective well‐being: the mediating role of perceived ingroup status

Previous research has found that, among stigmatized group members, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup simultaneously yields a positive indirect effect on self‐worth (mediated by ingroup identification) and a negative direct effect (Branscombe, Schmitt, & Harvey, 1999). This study not only replicated these effects with a sample of women, but also revealed that the negative direct effect was mediated by perceived status of the ingroup: as perceived discrimination increased, perceived ingroup status decreased, which in turn lowered collective self‐worth. Perceiving discrimination also increased the accessibility of the stigmatized group's devalued status. A new direction for future research may be to consider when stigmatized group members might affirm the ingroup rather than protect self‐worth. Copyright © 2003 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Taking the watchdog off its leash: personal prejudices and situational motivations jointly predict derogation of a stigmatized source

Lower- and higher-prejudiced individuals may strategically derogate negatively stereotyped individuals. Regardless of degree of prejudice, participants with a directional goal to discredit a threatening message and its source were more likely to do so when the source belonged to a negatively stereotyped group. They also were less persuaded by that stigmatized source. When this directional goal was negated by making the message nonthreatening, lower-prejudiced individuals evaluated the stigmatized and nonstigmatized sources, and their messages, similarly and were equally persuaded by both sources. When an accuracy goal was simultaneously introduced, lower-prejudice participants again rated the stigmatized and nonstigmatized sources comparably yet continued to derogate the stigmatized speaker's message and were less persuaded by him. Removing the directional goal or adding the accuracy goal did not affect higher-prejudiced participants' evaluations. The importance of examining situational goals and individual differences when studying biased responding is discussed.     

Do unto others as others have done unto you?: Perceiving sexism influences women's evaluations of stigmatized racial groups

The present research examines how making discrimination salient influences stigmatized group members' evaluations of other stigmatized groups. Specifically, three studies examine how salient sexism affects women's attitudes toward racial minorities. White women primed with sexism expressed more pro-White (relative to Black and Latino) self-report (Studies 1 and 3) and automatic (Study 2) intergroup bias, compared with White women who were not primed with sexism. Furthermore, group affirmation reduced the pro-White/antiminority bias White women expressed after exposure to sexism (Study 3), suggesting the mediating role of social identity threat. Overall, the results suggest that making discrimination salient triggers social identity threat, rather than a sense of common disadvantage, among stigmatized group members, leading to the derogation of other stigmatized groups. Implications for relations among members of different stigmatized groups are discussed.     

Discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants in interviews: an eye-tracking and face-to-face investigation

Drawing from theory and research on perceived stigma (Pryor, Reeder, Yeadon, & Hesson-McInnis, 2004), attentional processes (Rinck & Becker, 2006), working memory (Baddeley & Hitch, 1974), and regulatory resources (Muraven & Baumeister, 2000), the authors examined discrimination against facially stigmatized applicants and the processes involved. In Study 1, 171 participants viewed a computer-mediated interview of an applicant who was facially stigmatized or not and who either did or did not acknowledge the stigma. The authors recorded participants' (a) time spent looking at the stigma (using eye tracker technology), (b) ratings of the applicant, (c) memory recall about the applicant, and (d) self-regulatory depletion. Results revealed that the participants with facially stigmatized applicants attended more to the cheek (i.e., where the stigma was placed), which led participants to recall fewer interview facts, which in turn led to lower applicant ratings. In addition, the participants with the stigmatized (vs. nonstigmatized) applicant depleted more regulatory resources. In Study 2, 38 managers conducted face-to-face interviews with either a facially stigmatized or nonstigmatized applicant, and then rated the applicant. Results revealed that managers who interviewed a facially stigmatized applicant (vs. a nonstigmatized applicant) rated the applicant lower, recalled less information about the interview, and depleted more self-regulatory resources.     

Perceiving personal discrimination: the role of group status and legitimizing ideology

It was hypothesized that relative group status and endorsement of ideologies that legitimize group status differences moderate attributions to discrimination in intergroup encounters. According to the status-legitimacy hypothesis, the more members of low-status groups endorse the ideology of individual mobility, the less likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from higher status group members to discrimination. In contrast, the more members of high-status groups endorse individual mobility, the more likely they are to attribute negative outcomes from lower status group members to discrimination. Results from 3 studies using 2 different methodologies provide support for this hypothesis among members of different high-status (European Americans and men) and low-status (African Americans, Latino Americans, and women) groups.     

Self-stereotyping: the central role of an ingroup threatening identity

Self-stereotyping is a process by which people belonging to a stigmatized social group tend to describe themselves more with stereotypical traits as compared with traits irrelevant to the ingroup stereotype. The present work analyzes why especially members of low-status groups are more inclined to self-stereotype compared to members of high-status groups. We tested the hypothesis that belonging to a low-, rather than a high-status group, makes low-status members feel more threatened and motivates them to protect their self-perception by increasing their similarity with the ingroup. Specifically, we investigated the effects of an experimental manipulation that was conceived to either threaten or protect the natural group membership of participants from either a low- or a high-status group on the level of self-stereotyping. The findings supported the idea that only low-status group members protected themselves when their group identity was threatened through increased self-stereotyping.     

Role rigidity: a problem of identity misclassification?

When nonstigmatized individuals enact certain role-violating behaviors, they risk becoming "falsely accused deviants" (H. S. Becker, 1963, p. 20). For instance, when heterosexual men perform stereotypically feminine behaviors, they are liable to get misclassified as homosexual. Findings presented here reveal that expectations of identity misclassification fuel nonstigmatized individuals' negative reactions to role violations (Studies 1-2) and that using a disclaimer--that is, informing their audience of their nonstigmatized identity--assuages people's discomfort during a role-violating behavior (Studies 3-4). Moreover, when not concerned about being misclassified, nonstigmatized individuals benefit psychologically from the enactment of a challenging role violation (Study 4). Discussion considers the nature of the threat that misclassified role violators face and compares the plight of the falsely accused deviant to that of the truly stigmatized individual.     

Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one's worldview

The present research used validated cardiovascular measures to examine threat reactions among members of stigmatized groups when interacting with members of nonstigmatized groups who were, or were not, prejudiced against their group. The authors hypothesized that people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system would moderate their experience of threat during intergroup interactions. The authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the status system is fair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would disconfirm their worldview and result in greater threat. In contrast, the authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the system is unfair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would confirm their worldview and result in less threat. The authors examined these predictions among Latinas interacting with a White female confederate (Study 1) and White females interacting with a White male confederate (Study 2). As predicted, people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system moderated their experiences of threat during intergroup interactions, indicated both by cardiovascular responses and nonverbal behavior. The specific pattern of the moderation differed across the 2 studies.     

Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others

The extent to which stigmatized interaction partners engender perceivers' threat reactions (i.e., stigma-threat hypothesis) was examined. Experiments 1 and 2 included the manipulation of stigma using facial birthmarks. Experiment 3 included manipulations of race and socioeconomic status. Threat responses were measured physiologically, behaviorally, and subjectively. Perceivers interacting with stigmatized partners exhibited cardiovascular reactivity consistent with threat and poorer performance compared with participants interacting with nonstigmatized partners, who exhibited challenge reactivity. In Experiment 3, intergroup contact moderated physiological reactivity such that participants who reported more contact with Black persons exhibited less physiological threat when interacting with them. These results support the stigma-threat hypothesis and suggest the utility of a biopsychosocial approach to the study of stigma and related constructs.     

The Unintended Negative Consequences of Sympathy for the Stigmatized1

Research on attitudes toward the stigmatized indicates that negative feelings and stereotypes toward the stigmatized are often mixed with positive feelings of sympathy and concern. Three studies investigate the hypothesis that positive outcomes for the stigmatized that are motivated by sympathy may have unintended negative consequences for self-esteem, affect, and motivation. Subjects were asked to imagine themselves in the position of a stigmatized person who received a job either because he or she was qualified, or out of sympathy for a stigmatizing condition. Results indicated that subjects reported lower state self-esteem, more negative affect, and lowered work motivation when the job was offered out of sympathy rather than on the basis of qualifications. Study 2 showed that the negative effects of sympathy occur whether the basis for the sympathy is prejudice and discrimination or mobility problems faced by the stigmatized individual. The third experiment showed that sympathy has negative effects when the sympathy is based either on individual or group-based problems imposed by the stigmatizing condition. The findings are discussed in terms of the attributional ambiguity surrounding positive outcomes faced by the stigmatized and applied to the effects of affirmative-action programs.     

The self-protective and undermining effects of attributional ambiguity

Two experiments assessed the self-protective and undermining effects of attributional ambiguity. Both studies utilized immersive virtual environment technology to achieve otherwise difficult manipulations of stigma. In Experiment 1, White and Latino participants were either stigmatized (represented as Latino) or not (represented as White) and given negative leadership performance feedback. Afterwards, stigmatized participants reported higher well-being and attributed negative feedback more to discrimination than nonstigmatized participants. In Experiment 2, Latinos represented veridically showed self-protective effects after receiving negative leadership feedback. Additionally, this experiment revealed undermining effects of attributional ambiguity such that those participants represented as Latino discounted positive feedback and reported lower well-being. Thus, attributional ambiguity of stigmatized individuals (real or induced) buffered well-being in the face of negative feedback but undermined the well-being effects of positive feedback.     

Illusory Correlations in Perceptions of Obese and Hypertensive Patients’ Noncooperative Behaviors1

This research investigated perceived medical noncompliance between obese and hypertensive patients. An illusory correlation formed between obese patients and their noncooperative behaviors. Participants overestimated the frequency with which obese patients did not cooperate with their physician's advice when these patients appeared infrequently. When hypertensive patients appeared infrequently, however, participants were accurate in their estimates of noncooperation for these patients. These findings suggest that stigmatized patients suffer more from an illusory correlation bias than do nonstigmatized patients, and this effect is exacerbated when people have infrequent contact with stigmatized patients.     

Modeling the Role of Child Ethnicity and Gender in Children's Differential Response to Teacher Expectations1

This study examined the relationship between fall teacher expectations and year‐end achievement among 561 children in 1st, 3rd, and 5th grades. Specifically, we hypothesized that children from academically stigmatized groups (African Americans generally and girls in mathematics) are more likely to be responsive to negative teacher expectancies than are children from nonstigmatized groups. Controlling for prior achievement and class membership, moderator effects were tested with hierarchical linear models in the whole sample and with loglinear models in a subsample of children who were targets of extreme teacher over‐ and underestimates of ability. Among targets of extreme teacher over‐ and underestimates, in 3rd and 5th grade, ethnicity moderated expectancy effects in reading; and in 5th grade, gender moderated expectancy effects in math but not reading. Members of stigmatized groups were more susceptible to teacher underestimates of ability. Implications are discussed in terms of differential response to teacher expectations and in terms of how susceptibility to teacher expectations is conceptualized and inferred.