Post on 18-Dec-2015
How Implicit and Explicit How Implicit and Explicit Attitudes are Related to Attitudes are Related to
Public StigmaPublic Stigma
John B. Pryor, Ph.D.John B. Pryor, Ph.D.
Department of PsychologyDepartment of Psychology
Illinois State UniversityIllinois State University
Some of my collaborators
• Glenn Reeder
• Eric Wesselmann
• Kip Williams
• Jim Wirth
• Arati Patel
• Andrew Monroe
Outline of today’s talk
• Dual Process Theory – an overview• Study 1: How Implicit and Explicit
Attitudes are Related to Behavioral Reactions to Obesity Stigma
• Study 2: How Implicit Attitudes Moderate Stigma-by-Association Effects based Upon Arbitrary Associations
• Study 3: How Implicit Attitudes Moderate Stigma-by-Association Effects based Upon Knowledge Structures
A dual-process model of reactions to public stigma
Reflexive ProcessesReflexive Processes• Immediate, Immediate,
spontaneous reactionsspontaneous reactions• Often emotionalOften emotional• May reflect instinctual May reflect instinctual
processesprocesses• May reflect associative May reflect associative
processesprocesses
Rule-based ProcessesRule-based Processes• Thoughtful, deliberative Thoughtful, deliberative
reactionsreactions• Take time to unfoldTake time to unfold• Control processesControl processes• Bring into play Bring into play
attributional attributional considerations – considerations – why why questionsquestions
Theoretical Connections to Attitudes
Reflexive Reflexive ProcessesProcesses
ExplicitExplicitAttitudesAttitudes
ImplicitImplicitAttitudesAttitudes
Rule-based Rule-based ProcessesProcesses
Theoretical Processes Empirical Measures
General Hypotheses1. Implicit anti-stigma attitudes will be predictors of
automatic behaviors in response to stigmatized persons.
2. Explicit attitudes will be predictors of controlled behaviors toward stigmatized person.
3. Explicit attitudes will correlate with other deliberative thought processes regarding stigmatized persons. Implicit attitudes will not.
4. Implicit attitudes will moderate stigma-by-association effects. Those with more negative implicit attitudes toward a stigma will exhibit stronger stigma-by-association effects. Explicit attitudes will not moderate such effects.
Pictograph Judgments: Implicit Anti-Fat Attitudes (AMP)
• Before and after photos of 30 women taken from Weight Watchers website
1 second 1 second
Judgmentof
Meaning
Judgmentof
Meaning
Lower quartile (fat)
Upper quartile (fit)
S1
-0.025
0.475
-0.05
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
0.5
Pleasantness
Comparison of Ratings of Chinese Pictographs Following Fattest and Fittest Photographs
t(95) = 5.68, p < .01
Measuring Behavioral Reactions to a Stigmatized Person Using
Cyberball•An online game of “catch”
•Participants control an animated hand that tosses a ball to 2-3 other players who in turn toss the ball to each other or the participant
•Other players are actually “virtual confederates” whose tossing behavior can be programmed
When other players ostracizesomeone, the prevailing normis to try to include that person
Sara
Megan
Ashley
Me
Megan Megan
7.91
4.61
3.62
0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
OstracizedPlayer
OtherPlayer 1
OtherPlayer 2
Ball Tosses to the 3 Players
Main Effect for Player:F(2,104) = 54.63, p < .01
How is adherence to an How is adherence to an inclusion norminclusion norm affected by the affected by the
presence of a powerful presence of a powerful stigma?stigma? Although 2/3 of Americans are overweight, fat stigma remains oneof the most powerful stigmas incontemporary US. Many studies havefound that heavyweight White womenare particularly likely to be stigmatizedby their weight.
measuremeasure
ofof implicitimplicit
anti-fatanti-fat
attitudesattitudes
PlayPlay
CyberballCyberball
1 obese1 obese
& 2 non-& 2 non-obeseobese
playersplayers
3 3
non-non-obeseobese
playersplayers
ostracismostracism
of non-obeseof non-obese
playerplayer
inclusioninclusion
of non-obeseof non-obese
playerplayer
ostracismostracism
of obeseof obese
playerplayer
inclusioninclusion
of obeseof obese
playerplayer measuremeasure
of explicitof explicit
anti-fatanti-fat
attitudesattitudes
PreviewPreview
OtherOther
PlayersPlayers
AssessAssess
Anti-fatAnti-fat
AttitudesAttitudes
Basic ProcedureBasic Procedure& Design& Design
Participants received photos of the other 3 players prior to the Cyberball game. In half the conditions, one of the other players was obese. We altered photos to make the same person appear obese or normal weight.
Control Obese
Control
Deliberative Behavior: After first receiving the ball, how many turns did the participant
delay in tossing the ball to the target?
Sara
Megan
Ashley
InclusionOstracism
Not Obese
Obese
1.293
1.7
1.392
0.948
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
1
1.2
1.4
1.6
1.8
Delay
Delay in Trials to Toss to the Target Person as a Function of Ostracism/Inclusion & Target Obesity
F(1,84) = 6.27, p < .02 (means adjusted for covariates)
* p <.01F(1,84) = 5.85, p < .02
Not ObeseInclusionObeseInclusion
Not ObeseOstracismObeseOstracism
Implicit
Explicit
0.035
0.188
-0.206
0.61
0.2580.34
0.0360.163
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
0.5
0.6
0.7
Correlation
Correlations of Implicit and Explicit Anti-Fat Attitudes with Delay in Tossing to the Target
*
Automatic Behavior: Did the participant hesitate when deciding to toss the ball to
the target?
Sara
Megan
Ashley
InclusionOstracism
Not Obese
Obese
3381.416
3788.115
3517.2173492.283
3100
3200
3300
3400
3500
3600
3700
3800
Latency in miliseconds
Latency (Hesitation) in Tossing to the Target as a Function Of Ostracism/Inclusion and Target Obesity
(means adjusted for covariates)
Ostracism X Obesity X Implicit BiasF(1,84) = 13.21, p < ,01
*
* p <.01
Not ObeseInclusionObeseInclusion
Not ObeseOstracismObeseOstracism
Implicit
Explicit
0.028
-0.185-0.015
-0.139
0.0830.061
-0.487
0.583
-0.6
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
correlations
Correlations between Latency (Hesitancy) to Toss to the Target and Implicit and Explicit Anti-Fat Attitudes
*
*
Correlations
-0.062-0.338
-0.1430.058
-0.018-0.18
0.170.308
0.033-0.233
-0.016-0.203
-0.019-0.246
-0.4 -0.3 -0.2 -0.1 0 0.1 0.2 0.3 0.4
correlations
Internal Motivationto Control Prejudice
External Motivationto Control Prejudice
Disgust Sensitivity
Blaming Fat People
Empathic Concern
Perspective Taking
Attending ReligiousServices
Implicit Explicit
*
*
*
*
* p < .05
Conclusions of Study 1Conclusions of Study 1
• Inclusion norms were weaker when people interacted Inclusion norms were weaker when people interacted with a stigmatized person. Participants generally with a stigmatized person. Participants generally threw the ball less to fat womenthrew the ball less to fat women
• Explicit attitudes moderated the impact of a stigma Explicit attitudes moderated the impact of a stigma upon more controlled behaviorsupon more controlled behaviors
• Implicit attitudes moderated the impact of a stigma Implicit attitudes moderated the impact of a stigma upon more automatic behaviors.upon more automatic behaviors.
• Explicit attitudes were related to other deliberative Explicit attitudes were related to other deliberative processes like attribution of blame and motivations to processes like attribution of blame and motivations to control prejudicecontrol prejudice
Goffman’s concept of courtesy stigmaExample from Goffman (1963): Dear Ann Landers:I am a girl 12 years old who is left out of all
social activities because my father is an ex-convict….AN OUTCAST
Example from Goffman (1963): Dear Ann Landers:I am a girl 12 years old who is left out of all
social activities because my father is an ex-convict….AN OUTCAST
Stigma is spread by social structure associations. “Thus, the loyal spouse of a mental patient, the daughter of an ex-con, the parent of the cripple, the friend of the blind, the family of the hangman, are all obliged to share some of the discredit of the stigmatized person to whom they are related (p. 30).”
Stigma is spread by social structure associations. “Thus, the loyal spouse of a mental patient, the daughter of an ex-con, the parent of the cripple, the friend of the blind, the family of the hangman, are all obliged to share some of the discredit of the stigmatized person to whom they are related (p. 30).”
Stigma-by-association:Social Group Membership
stigma
kinshipchosen affiliationsracial/ethnic categoriesgroup labels
Stigma-by-association:Knowledge Structure Associations
stigmaKnowledgeStructure
world knowledgeideographic knowledge
Study #2: Stigma-by-Association
Hypotheses:
• An arbitrary association to an African American man can result in the devaluation of a job applicant
• This stigma-by-association effect will be moderated by implicit anti-Black attitudes.
Job candidate seated with a Black employeeJob candidate seated with a White employee
Manipulation of Arbitrary Association
Unpleasant Unpleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Pleasant Pleasant
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3
Unpleasant Unpleasant Unpleasant Pleasant Pleasant Pleasant
-3 -2 -1 1 2 3
1 second 1 second
signal photo pictograph rating
Affective Misattribution Procedure
Measuring Implicit Anti-Black Attitudes
0.405
0.195
0
0.05
0.1
0.15
0.2
0.25
0.3
0.35
0.4
0.45
Ratings of Chinese
Pictograph
White Photos Black Photos
Race of Person in Preceding Photo
AMP Ratings
Implicit Attitudes Concerning Race
5.43
4.74
4.2
4.4
4.6
4.8
5
5.2
5.4
5.6
Attitude Endorsement
Pro-Black Attitudes Anti-Black Attitudes
Explicit Racial Attitudes
Hiring Reccomendations as a Function of Other Employee's Race and AMP Score
7.3636 7.42867.95
7.57
8.7143
6.75
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
White Black
race of other employee
hiring
- 1 SD AMPMean+ 1 SD AMP
Main effect for race:F(1,174) = 6.46, p < .04Test for AMP as Moderator:F(1,168) = 16.57, p < .01
Study #3: Reactions to a Person
with Lung Cancer
Hypothesis:Reactions to a non-smoker with lung cancer will be moderated by implicit anti-smoker attitudes
c
LungCancer
Smokers
stigma
The association between smoking and lung cancer is part of most people’s knowledge structure
Experimental Design
SmokerWithLung
Cancer
Non-smoker
With LungCancer
PersonWith
BreastCancer
ImplicitMeasure/CancerStory
CancerStory/Implicit
Measure
order
story type
Measure of Implicit Attitudes toward Smokers
• How pleasant is the painting?
QuickTime™ and aTIFF (LZW) decompressor
are needed to see this picture.
1 second 1 second
• How pleasant is the painting?
signal photo abstract painting rating
AMP Ratings
-0.31
0.23
-0.15
0.69
-0.4
-0.2
0
0.2
0.4
0.6
0.8
smokers non-smokers negative pictures positve pictures
ratings of abstract paintings
t(138) = 7.31, p < .01 t(138) = 9.88, p < .01
Explicit Attitudes toward women who smoke cigarettes, women with breast cancer and women with lung cancer
were measured with feeling thermometers
degrees POSITIVE 100° Extremely favorable feelings
90° Very favorable 80° Quite favorable 70° Fairly favorable 60° Slightly favorable 50° Neither favorable nor unfavorable 40° Slightly unfavorable 30° Fairly unfavorable 20° Quite unfavorable 10° Very unfavorable
NEGATIVE 0° Extremely unfavorable feelings
Explicit attitudes toward women with cancer
63.9
49.09
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
women with breast cancer women with lung cancer
type of cancer
Feeling Thermometer
t(135) = 8.26, p < .01
Research Questions1) Will participants react more negatively to a
person with lung cancer than a person with breast cancer? Does it matter whether the lung cancer was caused by smoking?
2) Will people react more negatively to a smoker with lung cancer than a non-smoker with lung cancer?
3) How do implicit attitudes toward smokers relate to reactions toward smokers and non-smokers with lung cancer?
4) Does blame mediate the difference between reactions toward smokers and non-smokers with lung cancer?
How sympathetic was the participant toward the person in the story?
8.4158.117
6.507
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
breast cancer nonsmoker w/ lungcancer
smoker w/ lung cancer
type of cancer
degree of sympathy
F(2,133) = 22.27, p < .01Tukey HSD: a=b>c
a b c
Degree to which participants blamed the person in the story for having cancer
-2.247
-1.728
1.086
-3
-2
-1
0
1
2
3
breast cancer nonsmoker w/ lung cancer smoker w/ lung cancer
type pf cancer
blame
F(2,133) = 117.11, p < .01Tukey HSD: a=b>c
ab
c
Concept of ModerationA moderator variable changes the impact of the independent variable upon
the dependent variable
Independentvariable
Moderatorvariable
Dependent variable
CONDITIONS OF PROOF OF MODERATION•Independent variable is correlated with dependent variable•Independent variable is NOT correlated with moderator variable•Moderator variable is correlated with dependent variable, maybe
in some conditions, but not others•Interaction of IV and ModV enhances the prediction of the DV
Barron & Kenny (1986)
Relationships of Possible Moderators to Cancer Story
Manipulation• Implicit Anti-Smoker Attitudes F(2,130)
= .39, NS• Explicit attitudes toward women who
smoke F(2,130) = .85, NS• Explicit attitudes toward women with
lung cancer F(2,130) = 2.82, NS • Explicit attitudes toward women with
breast cancer F(2,130) = .85, NS
Correlations of Blame and Sympathy with Implicit Anti-Smoker Attitudes
-0.14
0.24
0.13
-0.07
-0.51
-0.1
-0.6
-0.5
-0.4
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
breast cancer nonsmoker w/ lungcancer
smoker w/ lungcancer
type of cancer
correlations
blamesympathy
*
**
* p < .01** p < .10
Correlations of Blame and Sympathy with Explicit Atttudes toward Women who Smoke Tobacco, Women with Lung
Cancer, & Women with Breast Cancer
-0.06-0.09
-0.19
0.16
-0.25
0.22
-0.26
0.14
0.01
0.32
0.13
0.24
-0.13
0.18
-0.14
0.24
0.01
-0.11
-0.3
-0.2
-0.1
0
0.1
0.2
0.3
0.4
blame sympathy blame sympathy blame sympathy
attitude-women who smoke attitude-women w/lungcancer
attitude-women w/ breastcancer
Explicit Attitudes
Correlations
breast cancer nonsmoker w/ lung cancer smoker w/ lung cancer
*
* p < .03
Tests of Moderator X Cancer Story Interactions where
Blame is the DV• AMP F(2,121) = 2.15, NS• Attitudes toward women who smoke
F(2,121) = .66, NS• Attitudes toward women with lung
cancer F(2,121) = .57, NS • Attitudes toward women with breast
cancer F(2,121) = .21, NS
Tests of Moderator X Cancer Story Interactions where
Sympathy is the DV• Implicit Anti-Smoker Attitudes F(2,121) =
3.38, p = .04• Explicit attitudes toward women who smoke
F(2,121) = .85, NS• Explicit attitudes toward women with lung
cancer F(2,121) = 4.69, p = .01 • Explicit attitudes toward women with breast
cancer F(2,121) = 5.90, p < .01
Conclusion about moderators• Implicit attitudes moderate the relationship
between type of cancer and sympathy for a person with cancer: people with stronger implicit anti-smoker attitudes had less sympathy for a non-smoker with cancer
• Explicit attitudes about women with lung cancer also moderated sympathy- people with more positive attitudes toward women with lung cancer had more sympathy for a non-smoker with lung cancer
Concept of MediationA mediator is an intervening psychological process or state through which the
independent variable affects the dependent variable
Independentvariable
Mediatorvariable
Dependent variable
CONDITIONS OF PROOF OF MEDIATION•Independent variable is correlated with dependent variable•Independent variable is correlated with mediator variable•Mediator variable is correlated with dependent variable•When IV and MV are simultaneously correlated with DV,
then relationship between IV and DV is reduced
Barron & Kenny (1986)
Test of MediationThe values below represent unstandardized regression coefficients
Non-smokervs. Smoker
Blame
Sympathy
Sobel Test of difference between .76 & .21:4.40, p < .01Conclusion: Blame completely mediates thedifference in sympathy for non-smokers vs.smokers with lung cancer
1.39* -.39*
.76*
.21
Test of MediationThe values below represent unstandardized regression coefficients
Breast cancervs. Smoker
Blame
Sympathy
Sobel Test of difference between .86 & .20:3.98, p < .01Conclusion: Blame completely mediates thedifference in sympathy for women with breastcancer vs. smokers with lung cancer
1.63* -.37*
.86*
.20
Conclusion about mediation• Blame is a mediator between the type of
cancer and the degree of sympathy people feel for someone with cancer
• People have less sympathy for someone with lung cancer who smokes than someone who does not smoke because they blame the smoker more than the non-smoker
• People have less sympathy for a person with with lung cancer who smokes than someone with breast cancer because they blame the smoker more than the person with breast cancer
Internal Externalbeliefs Motivation to Motivation to
beliefs about Control Controlabout positive Prejudice - Prejudice -dangers of aspects of Persons with Persons withsmoking smoking Cancer Cancer
AMP 0.15 -0.04 0.05 -0.01
attitude-women who smoke -0.05 0.47 -0.23 -0.02
attitude-women with -0.11 -0.14 0.23 -0.22lung cancerattitude-women with -0.06 -0.07 0.24 -0.21breast cancer
* *
**
* *
Correlations between Implicit and Explicit Attitudes and Some Other Variables
Conclusions about correlations
• Implicit attitudes (AMP) do not correlate with measures of beliefs or motivations to control prejudice
• Some explicit attitudes do correlate with some measures of beliefs about smoking and motivations to control prejudice
Conclusions of Today’s Talk
General implicit anti-stigma attitudes correlate with automatic negative behaviors toward individuals who are stigmatized.
General explicit anti-stigma attitudes correlate with deliberative negative behaviors toward individuals who are stigmatized.
General explicit anti-stigma attitudes are correlated with blaming the stigmatized and concerns about political correctness
General implicit anti-stigma attitudes moderate stigma-by-association effects.
Conclusions of Today’s Talk
General implicit anti-stigma attitudes correlate with automatic negative behaviors toward individuals who are stigmatized.
General explicit anti-stigma attitudes correlate with deliberative negative behaviors toward individuals who are stigmatized.
General explicit anti-stigma attitudes are correlated with blaming the stigmatized and concerns about political correctness
General implicit anti-stigma attitudes moderate stigma-by-association effects.