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.

Study 1: Implicit and Explicit

Attitudes toward Fat Stigma

Measuring Implicit Attitudes toward Obesity

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

Explicit Attitude Measure: Feeling Thermometer for Obese Women

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

Cyberball Game

Sara

Megan

Ashley

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:Arbitrary Associations

ArbitraryAssociation

stigma

proximitysimilarity

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

Many Public Health Campaigns are Aimed at

Stigmatizing Smoking

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

Using a t-test computed for each participant as an AMP

index

M(A) - M(B)

∑D2 -(∑D)2

N

N X (N-1)

t =

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.