17 and 18 - Experiencing Discrimination Flashcards
1- Stigma
Stigma: Possessing (or being believed to possess) a characteristic that conveys a devalued social
identity
When a stranger is present before us, evidence can arise of his possessing an attribute that makes him different from others… in the
extreme, a person who is bad, or dangerous, or weak. He is thus reduced in our minds from a whole and usual person to a tainted,
discounted one…Stigma constitutes a special discrepancy between
virtual and actual social identity.
Goffman outlined three types of stigma:
- Physical
- Mental
- Tribal
Dimensions of Stigma
Five dimensions that capture meaningful differences between stigmas:
1. Visibility
2. Controllability
3. Disruptiveness
4. Aesthetic qualities
5. Peril
- Visibility
* Visible stigmas are easy to be judged by
* People with visible stigma know that others are judging them
based on that stigma
* People with concealable stigma may hide their stigmas - Controllability
* Stigmas are controllable when either:
o The individual is responsible for their
condition
o The stigma could be eliminated by the
behavior of the stigmatized individual
* People with stigmas that are perceived to
be controllable are more likely to discriminated against (ex: weight, lgbtq (before especially)
* People with stigmas that are perceived to be
controllable are more likely to:
o try and escape the stigma by changing their
behavior
* People with stigmas that are perceived to be
uncontrollable are more likely to:
o focus on self-acceptance
o confronting people who express prejudice
-Manipulating Controllability of a Stigma:
Controllability
Rodin et al. (1989)
Participants read about a hiring manager evaluating a qualified applicant who had
a stigma that was portrayed as controllable (uses foul language, has poor
grooming) or uncontrollable (stutters, has a facial birthmark).
The manager decides to reject the applicant based on this stigma (“doesn’t like
being around people whose appearance he doesn’t like”; “doesn’t like being around people who have difficulty speaking”).
Subjects felt less negativity to the hiring manager when discrimination was based
on features that were deemed more controllable. - Disruptiveness
* How much a condition makes social
interaction less predictable or more uncertain
* Familiarity decreases disruptiveness over
time - Aesthetic Qualities:
How much a characteristic makes an individual “upsetting” to others
* More attractive = less stigma
* Less attractive = more stigma
* Familiarity decreases the impact of aesthetic qualities - Peril:
Degree of danger that the stigmatizing condition poses to others
* Danger reminds people of their vulnerability
* Stigmatized identities that are perceived to be dangerous are discriminated against more (ex: HIV positive)
Stigma by Association: Associating with a
stigmatized individual can lead to stigmatization (black and white couples, family members with mental illness, Man was rated as less
attractive when presented
next to a person who was
less physically attractive, (White) applicant was rated as less qualified when viewed sitting next to a Black versus a White employee. )
2- Perceiving Discrimination:
Attributional Ambiguity
The problem for perceiving discrimination: Most discrimination is not
blatant
Attributional Ambiguity: The difficulty that stereotyped groups have in
interpreting feedback
“Was their response to me about who I am as an individual or about my
group membership?”
Examples
* Women who were evaluated unfavorably by a blatantly prejudiced
evaluator experienced less negative affect than women who were rated unfavorably by an unbiased evaluator (Crocker et al., 2001) (he’s just sexist, it’s nothing personal vs. did I do something wrong?)
Examples
* Attractive participants were less likely to believe positive interpersonal feedback than were unattractive participants (Major et al., 1984)
Study with VR and randomly assigned avatars of different races:
Participants (regardless of actual ethnic identity) were more likely to attribute the feedback to discrimination when their avatar was made to look Latinx versus White.
Similar pattern emerged in a follow-up study that gave positive feedback, meaning
attributional ambiguity buffered against negative feedback but also reduced the benefits of positive feedback.
3- Perceiving discrimination: When is it more likely to happen?
- If it’s an outgroup member
(like if it’s a white person talking to a black person) - In a context linked to negative stereotypes
(like when a woman has to drive for example) - When you identify more with your ingroup
(like if you strongly connect with your asian club at school) - Having stigma consciousness
Stigma Consciousness: The belief that your group is being judged based on stereotypes
o Higher stigma consciousness -> more perceptions of discrimination
Impacts on health:
Feelings of low control and increased feelings of exclusion that are associated with pervasive discrimination are likely to undermine physical health…Minor forms of discrimination may
produce more stress because of their ambiguous nature. Because it may be unclear as to what underlies subtle mistreatment, appropriate coping responses may be difficult to implement.
Perceived discrimination — heightened stress response + risk health behaviours —- worse physical and mental health
Greater perceptions of racial discrimination linked with:
Lower physical health
* Self-reported health
* Blood pressure
* Smoking
* Alcohol use
Lower mental health
* Worse well-being
* Self-esteem
* Control over life
* Depression
* Anxiety
but also some evidence for the reverse direction as well.
Example: A depressed person may be more likely to attribute ambiguous
negative events to discrimination. - When it’s blatant
(ex: KKK)
Racial Discrimination in Online Dating
Heterosexual participants engaged in a mock ‘Tinder’ task for ~200 faces.
Participants then completed demographic measures as well as measures related to personality characteristics like attachment anxiety, extraversion, conscientiousness, and self-esteem
The only consistent predictors of a “swipe” decision were:
1) Physical attractiveness (rated by other people)
2) Whether the target belonged to the same race as the participant.
4- Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy
Personal/Group Discrimination Discrepancy (PGDD): The tendency for stigmatized group members to report higher levels
of discrimination against their group in general than against themselves personally as members of their group.
Cognitive Mechanisms:
1. Identification : Easier to identify general patterns across many people than to
identify discrimination within any specific case
2. Accessibility: Group-level examples of discrimination are more accessible in
mind than individual-level examples of discrimination
3. Comparison Standard: o Our group: “Is our group discriminated against compared to other
groups?”
o Ourselves: “Am I discriminated against compared to other group
members?”
Motivational Mechanisms:
1. Denial: We’re motivated to deny or minimize our own experiences with
discrimination
Belief in a Just World:
“Individuals have a need to believe that they live in a world where people generally get what they deserve and deserve
what they get” (Lerner, 1978, p.1030).
* If you’re being discriminated against personally, that violates your
belief in a just world
* It’s easier to believe abstractly in discrimination in general
2. Distancing: Motivated to distance ourselves from negative attributes associated with our ingroup
* People who claim discrimination are disliked
3. Affiliation: Claiming discrimination may harm relationships with others
5- Emotional & Motivational Responses to Discrimination:
Concealing
- Concealing: Hiding or obscuring your stigma
o Can be partial or complete
Consequences of Concealing
Benefit: You’re not judged negatively according to your stigma
Cognitive Costs of Concealing
1. Preoccupation
2. Increased vigilance
People with an eating disorder role-played not having an ED (Smart & Wegner, 1999)
o Increased accessibility of eating disorder (measured through a word-completion
task; for example, __OOD and __INGE)
o Higher secrecy, suppression, and intrusive thoughts about ED
o Projection of ED thoughts onto interviewer
Results: Eating disorder (ED) participants who were assigned to not reveal their condition to a confederate later performed worse on a cognitive test (Quinn et al., 2004)
Emotional Costs of Concealment
1. Anxiety (about being caught)
2. Shame (internalizing your stigma)
3. Ambivalence about identity
A majority (67%) of participants recruited who had a concealable stigma (LGBT identity, history of mental illness) agreed that it was best to conceal this stigma when meeting a new person.
In a follow-up study, participants were randomly
assigned to conceal or not conceal their stigma
(modified here to be about a particular major).
Participants told to hide their identity reported lower
levels of belonging and less positive interactions with
a conversation partner. These effects were mediated
by lower feelings of authenticity in the condition told to hide their identity.
Behavioral Implications of Concealing
* Avoiding social interactions
* Impression management to conceal stigma
o Counter-stereotypical behavior
o Modifying mannerisms
o Lying or keeping quiet about certain topics
What shapes the decision to conceal or disclose?
1. Threat of discovery
2. Self-verification motives: Motivations to want others to see us as we see ourselves
3. Context (e.g., work, family, friends)
4. Degree of disclosure
Concealing can prevent discrimination, but can have
cognitive, emotional & behavioral drawbacks.
6- Emotional & Motivational Responses to Discrimination:
Compensation
Compensation: Behaviors that reduce interpersonal discrimination toward one’s self (when stigma is visible or disclosed)
Example Strategies
1. Acknowledgement:
Openly addressing one’s stigma
o Eases interactions because they address underlying tension
2. Increased positivity: Acting in a way to engender more positive attitudes
o E.g., acting likeable, friendly, or approachable
3. Individuating information: Divulging information that allows others to see one as
an individual rather than just a holder of a stigmatized identity (ex: green jelly beans woman)
Expecting to be the Target of Prejudice
* Manipulated stigma consciousness
o Experimental: Read article about how minorities are often the target of racist
remarks in social interactions
o Control: Read article about how discrimination is common against the elderly
* Ethnic minorities had a conversation with a White partner & reported on the
experience
Results
* Heightened stigma consciousness led ethnic minorities:
o To have more negative emotions
o To feel less authentic
o To like their conversation partner less
* However, White people who had more stigma conscious conversation partners
reported having more positive experiences!
7- Emotional & Motivational Responses to Discrimination:
Confrontation
- Why don’t people confront?
- When do people confront?
- What makes for an effective confrontation?
Study 1:
* Women participated in a “group decision making” study with two other people.
* Problem: Pick 12 people out of a list of 30 who would be best suited to survive together on a desert island.
* During group discussion, a male confederate made sexist statements:
1. “Yeah, we definitely need to keep the women in shape”
2. “Let me see, maybe a chef? No, one of the women can cook.”
3. “I think we need more women on the island to keep the men satisfied.”
* 55% of women did not confront the man
* 25% directly confronted the man (e.g., saying it was sexist)
* 20% indirectly confronted the man
o Comments about task (“You can’t pick for that reason. Pick another
person.”)
o Surprise (“Oh my God, I can’t believe you said that!”)
o Humor or sarcasm
Study 2:
Upon entering the laboratory, the experimenter introduced the experiencers to two male confederates—one Black and one White—who posed as fellow
participants, and then the experimenter exited the room. Shortly thereafter, the Black confederate left the room, ostensibly to retrieve his cell phone, and gently bumped the white confederate’s knee on his way out. In the control condition, this incident passed without comment. In the moderate slur condition, once the Black confederate had left the room, the
White confederate remarked, “Typical, I hate it when Black people do that.” In the extreme racial slur condition, the White uttered a racial slur.
In the forecaster condition, participants were presented with a detailed description of the events that experiencers actually encountered.
Forecasters were asked to predict in writing how they would feel if they were in the experiencer’s position and to predict which confederate they would choose as a partner.
Forecasters: predicted they would feel higher negative emotional distress than the real experiencers. Predicted that they wouldn’t choose the white partner after him being racist, but the experiencers still chose the white partner just the same
In a series of studies, researchers studied reactions of stigmatized group members (those identifying as East or Southeast Asian) to someone who confronted a prejudiced comment on social media.
Specifically, they studied whether the person used an aggressive vs. passive approach as well as whether the person was an ingroup vs. outgroup member.
Statements that received an aggressive confrontation were seen as more
offensive than those receiving a passive confrontation (despite the fact that all statements were pre-tested to be equally offensive!) This was particularly true for statements that were confronted by an
outgroup members.
Outgroup members that responded in an aggressive manner were also
liked more: Despite outgroup confronters’ power to shape perceptions of the racist
post, they were only seen positively if they confronted in an aggressive manner.
Study 3:
One study used social media profiles to confront online hate speech. The researchers compared counter-messages based in humor, warnings of
consequences, or empathy.
Results: Empathy-based approaches led to more tweets being deleted, and less xenophobic tweets being made by the confronted account
Reasons Why People Don’t Directly Confront:
* Normative to not engage with prejudiced person
* Social norm to be polite if you do respond
* Concern about retaliation
* Diffusion of responsibility
The long road to confrontation:
* Step #1: Event interpreted as discrimination
o Detecting whether discrimination happened
* Step #2: Discriminatory incident is an “emergency”
o Is the incident serious enough?
o Was the perpetrator blameworthy?
* Step #3: Take responsibility
Diffusion of responsibility: each bystander’s sense of responsibility to help
deceases as the number of witnesses increases
o AKA someone else will handle this
* Step #4: Knowing how to help
o How to confront the perpetrator without escalating the conflict?
* Step #5: Taking action
o Weigh risks, costs, & benefits
What Makes for an Effective Confrontation?
* Focus on behavior or others’ reactions over a person’s character
o “That word made me feel uncomfortable”
o NOT “You’re racist”
* Being a member of the non-stigmatized group
o White confronter on anti-Black racism (Gulker et al., 2013)
o Male confronter on anti-female sexism (Czopp & Monteith, 2003)
