How Implicit and Explicit Attitudes are Related to Public Stigma

1. How Implicit and Explicit Attitudes are Related to Public Stigma John B. Pryor, Ph.D. Department of Psychology Illinois State University

2. Some of my collaborators • Glenn Reeder • Eric Wesselmann • Kip Williams • Jim Wirth • Arati Patel • Andrew Monroe

3. 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

4. Reflexive Processes Immediate, spontaneous reactions Often emotional May reflect instinctual processes May reflect associative processes Rule-based Processes Thoughtful, deliberative reactions Take time to unfold Control processes Bring into play attributional considerations – why questions A dual-process model of reactions to public stigma

5. Reflexive Processes Explicit Attitudes Theoretical Connections to Attitudes Implicit Attitudes Rule-based Processes Empirical Measures Theoretical Processes

6. General Hypotheses • Implicit anti-stigma attitudes will be predictors of automatic behaviors in response to stigmatized persons. • Explicit attitudes will be predictors of controlled behaviors toward stigmatized person. • Explicit attitudes will correlate with other deliberative thought processes regarding stigmatized persons. Implicit attitudes will not. • 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.

7. Study 1: Implicit and Explicit Attitudes toward Fat Stigma

8. Measuring Implicit Attitudes toward Obesity

9. Pictograph Judgments: Implicit Anti-Fat Attitudes (AMP) • Before and after photos of 30 women taken from Weight Watchers website Judgment of Meaning 1 second 1 second Judgment of Meaning

10. t(95) = 5.68, p < .01

11. Explicit Attitude Measure: Feeling Thermometer for Obese Women

12. 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

13. Cyberball Game Megan Ashley Sara

14. When other players ostracizesomeone, the prevailing normis to try to include that person Megan Megan Megan Ashley Sara Me

16. How is adherence to an inclusion norm affected by the presence of a powerful stigma? Although 2/3 of Americans are overweight, fat stigma remains one of the most powerful stigmas in contemporary US. Many studies have found that heavyweight White women are particularly likely to be stigmatized by their weight.

17. Preview Other Players Play Cyberball Basic Procedure & Design ostracism of obese player 1 obese & 2 non-obese players Assess Anti-fat Attitudes inclusion of obese player measure of explicit anti-fat attitudes measure ofimplicit anti-fat attitudes ostracism of non-obese player 3 non-obese players inclusion of non-obese player

18. 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. Obese Control Control

19. Deliberative Behavior: After first receiving the ball, how many turns did the participant delay in tossing the ball to the target? Megan Ashley Sara

20. F(1,84) = 6.27, p < .02 (means adjusted for covariates)

21. * F(1,84) = 5.85, p < .02 * p <.01

22. Automatic Behavior: Did the participant hesitate when deciding to toss the ball to the target? Megan Ashley Sara

23. Ostracism X Obesity X Implicit Bias F(1,84) = 13.21, p < ,01 (means adjusted for covariates)

24. * * * * p <.01

25. Correlations * * * * * p < .05

26. Conclusions of Study 1 • Inclusion norms were weaker when people interacted with a stigmatized person. Participants generally threw the ball less to fat women • Explicit attitudes moderated the impact of a stigma upon more controlled behaviors • Implicit attitudes moderated the impact of a stigma upon more automatic behaviors. • Explicit attitudes were related to other deliberative processes like attribution of blame and motivations to control prejudice

27. Goffman’s concept of courtesy stigma 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).”

28. Stigma-by-association:Social Group Membership stigma kinship chosen affiliations racial/ethnic categories group labels

29. Stigma-by-association:Arbitrary Associations stigma Arbitrary Association proximity similarity

30. Stigma-by-association:Knowledge Structure Associations Knowledge Structure stigma world knowledge ideographic knowledge

31. 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.

32. Manipulation of Arbitrary Association

33. Measuring Implicit Anti-Black Attitudes

34. Implicit Attitudes Concerning Race

36. Main effect for race: F(1,174) = 6.46, p < .04 Test for AMP as Moderator: F(1,168) = 16.57, p < .01

37. 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

38. c stigma Smokers The association between smoking and lung cancer is part of most people’s knowledge structure Lung Cancer

39. Many Public Health Campaigns are Aimed at Stigmatizing Smoking

40. Experimental Design story type Smoker With Lung Cancer Non-smoker With Lung Cancer Person With Breast Cancer order Implicit Measure/ Cancer Story Cancer Story/ Implicit Measure

41. Measure of Implicit Attitudes toward Smokers • How pleasant is the painting? 1 second 1 second • How pleasant is the painting? abstract painting signal photo rating

43. Using a t-test computed for each participant as an AMP index M(A) - M(B) (∑D)2 t = ∑D2 - N N X (N-1)

44. Explicit Attitudes toward women who smoke cigarettes, women with breast cancer and women with lung cancer were measured with feeling thermometers

45. t(135) = 8.26, p < .01

46. Research Questions • 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? • Will people react more negatively to a smoker with lung cancer than a non-smoker with lung cancer? • How do implicit attitudes toward smokers relate to reactions toward smokers and non-smokers with lung cancer? • Does blame mediate the difference between reactions toward smokers and non-smokers with lung cancer?

47. c a b F(2,133) = 22.27, p < .01 Tukey HSD: a=b>c

48. c b a F(2,133) = 117.11, p < .01 Tukey HSD: a=b>c

49. Concept of ModerationA moderator variable changes the impact of the independent variable upon the dependent variable Barron & Kenny (1986) Moderator variable Independent variable 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

50. 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