Turning Our Attention to Stigma: An Objective Self-Awareness Analysis of Stigma and Its Consequences

Scholars have long debated stigma\u27s effects on the psychological functioning of its targets, with some concluding that stigma does not harm self-esteem (Crocker & Major, 1989Crocker , J. , & Major , B. ( 1989 ). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma .Psychological Review , 96 , 608 – 630 .[Crossref], [Web of Science ®], [Google Scholar]), and others taking the opposite stance. We propose a resolution to this debate by applying the theory of objective self-awareness (Duval & Wicklund, 1972Duval , S. , & Wicklund , R. A. ( 1972 ). A theory of objective self-awareness . New York , NY : Academic Press . [Google Scholar]) to the literature on the psychological consequences of stigma. We argue that public stigma has negative consequences when its targets focus objectively on their stigmatized status. Explicitly applying objective self-awareness theory to the stigma literature casts new light on past findings and suggests directions for future research

When Saying and Doing Diverge: The Effects of Stereotype Threat on Self-reported Versus Nonverbal Anxiety

Although research has established that stigmatized individuals suffer impaired performance under stereotype threat conditions, the anxiety presumed to mediate this effect has proven difficult to establish. In the current investigation, we explored whether non-verbal measures would fare better than self-reports in capturing stereotype threat anxiety. Gay and heterosexual men interacted with preschool children under stereotype threat or control conditions. As predicted, stereotype-threatened gay men demonstrated more non-verbal anxiety, but not more self-reported anxiety, than non-threatened gays during these interactions. Furthermore, non-verbal anxiety appeared to mediate the effects of stereotype threat on the quality of participants’ childcare skills. We discuss how these findings advance stereotype threat research, and highlight their potential implications for gay childcare workers

The Emotional Impact of Ambivalent Sexism: Forecasts Versus Real Experiences

Research on affective forecasting indicates that people regularly mispredict the emotional impact of negative events. We extended this work by demonstrating several forecasting errors regarding women’s affective reactions to ambivalent sexism. In response to a survey about sexism against women, students at a university in the Central U.S. (N = 188) overestimated the negative impact of hostile sexism, and underestimated the negative impact of benevolent sexism, relative to women’s reports of their actual experiences. Moreover, people mispredicted both the intensity of women’s initial affective reactions to, and the duration of women’s recovery following, ambivalent sexism. The data supported a model in which inaccurate estimates of initial intensity fully accounted for people’s inaccurate estimates of recovery duration following ambivalent sexism

The Affective Consequences of Minimizing Women\u27s Body Image Concerns

We propose that women regularly anticipate and receive messages from others that trivialize the severity of their body image concerns. Moreover, we suggest that these minimizing messages can heighten women\u27s negative affective reactions to body image threats, particularly if they internalize them. Two studies provided support for these ideas. In Study 1, women and men estimated the likelihood that others would minimize the feelings of a woman who felt badly about her body. As expected, women estimated a high likelihood of minimization. In Study 2, women internalized or rejected a message that either minimized or validated the severity of body image concerns before undergoing a body image threat themselves. Women felt heightened negative affect following the threat if they internalized the minimizing message, but they maintained their prethreat affective state if they rejected the minimizing message or internalized the validating message. The discussion focuses on the implications of these findings for research on effective social support and clinical interventions

The Boundaries of Minimization as a Technique for Improving Affect: Good for the Goose but not for the Gander?

Research on minimization as a coping strategy suggests that it alleviates negative affect following threats. In contrast, research on minimization as a support‐giving strategy suggests that it does more harm than good. Does this mean that minimization works when it is self‐generated, but does not when it is offered by others? The present study examined the effect of self‐ and externally‐ generated minimizations on people with high and low self‐esteem following a self‐threat. Results suggest that externally‐generated minimizations do not alleviate negative affect when they occur before the recipient has had time to cope. Discussion centers around the implications of these findings for past research, as well as distinctions between how people with low versus high self‐esteem cope with negative events

pinel_online_appendix – Supplemental material for More About When I’s Meet: The Intergroup Ramifications of I-Sharing, Part II

<p>Supplemental material, pinel_online_appendix for More About When I’s Meet: The Intergroup Ramifications of I-Sharing, Part II by Elizabeth C. Pinel, Anson E. Long, Leslie C. Johnson and Geneva C. Yawger in Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin</p