Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny.

Two experiments examined the viability of several explanations for why majority group individuals process persuasive messages from stigmatized sources more than those from nonstigmatized sources. in each study. majority group participants who either were high or low in prejudice or were high or low in ambivalence toward a stigmatized source's group were exposed to a persuasive communication attributed to a stigmatized (Black, Experiment 1; homosexual, Experiment 2) or nonstigmatized (White, Experiment 1; heterosexual, Experiment 2) source. In both studies, source stigmatization increased message scrutiny only among those who were low in prejudice toward the stigmatized group. This finding is most consistent with the view that people scrutinize messages from stigmatized sources in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The effects of majority versus minority source status on persuasion: A self-validation analysis.

The present research proposes that sources in the numerical majority (vs. minority) can affect persuasion by influencing the confidence with which people hold their thoughts in response to the persuasive message. Participants received a persuasive message composed of either strong or weak arguments that was presented by a majority or a minority source. Consistent with the self-validation hypothesis, we predicted and found that the majority (vs. minority) status of the source increased the confidence with which recipients held their thoughts. As a consequence, majority (vs. minority) sources increased argument quality effects in persuasion when source status information followed message processing (Experiment 1). In contrast, when the information regarding source status preceded (rather than followed) the persuasive message, it validated the perception of the position advocated, reducing message processing. As a consequence of having more confidence in the position advocated before receiving the message, majority (vs. minority) sources reduced argument quality effects in persuasion (Experiment 2). Finally, Experiment 3 isolated the timing of the source status manipulation, revealing that sources in the numerical majority (vs. minority) can increase or decrease persuasion to strong arguments depending on whether source status is introduced before or after processing the message. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Perceiver threat in social interactions with stigmatized others.

The extent to which stigmatized interaction partners engender perceivers' threat reactions (i.e., stigma–threat hypothesis) was examined. Experiments 1 and 2 included the manipulation of stigma using facial birthmarks. Experiment 3 included manipulations of race and socioeconomic status. Threat responses were measured physiologically, behaviorally, and subjectively. Perceivers interacting with stigmatized partners exhibited cardiovascular reactivity consistent with threat and poorer performance compared with participants interacting with nonstigmatized partners, who exhibited challenge reactivity. In Experiment 3, intergroup contact moderated physiological reactivity such that participants who reported more contact with Black persons exhibited less physiological threat when interacting with them. These results support the stigma–threat hypothesis and suggest the utility of a biopsychosocial approach to the study of stigma and related constructs. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Reporting discrimination in public and private contexts.

The authors tested the hypothesis that members of stigmatized groups would be unwilling to report that negative events that occur to them are the result of discrimination when they are in the presence of members of a nonstigmatized group. Supporting this hypothesis, women and African Americans were more likely to report that a failing grade assigned by a man or a European American was caused by discrimination, rather than by their own lack of ability, when they made the judgment privately and in the presence of a fellow stigmatized group member. However, they were more likely to indicate that the cause of the failure was lack of ability, rather than discrimination, when they expected to make these judgments aloud in the presence of a nonstigmatized group member. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

On the Categorization of Admired and Disliked Exemplars of Admired and Disliked Racial Groups.

The present work examined the influence of affective fit in the racial categorization process. Study 1 tested whether famous exemplars of stigmatized and nonstigmatized racial groups are categorized by race at differential rates, depending on whether they are admired or disliked. Using an inverted-face paradigm, Study 2 examined whether racial categorization accuracy differs for admired and disliked exemplars of these groups. Study 3 examined the influence of collective self-esteem on Whites' tendency to differentially categorize admired and disliked Black and White exemplars. Last, Study 4 replicated the pattern of results found in the previous studies for White participants, making use of unknown exemplars about whom participants learned either positive or negative information prior to categorizing them. Taken together, the results suggested that phenotypically irrelevant affective information regarding exemplars and their social group memberships influences the racial categorization process. Implications for prejudice and stereotyping are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

The leniency contract and persistence of majority and minority influence.

The leniency contract (E. M. Alvaro & W. D. Crano, 1997) explicates a maxim of social influence: Majorities induce public, temporary change, whereas minority influence is indirect and persistent. The contract holds that minority messages are elaborated without derogation or counterargument; in recompense, direct change is repudiated. This response pattern unbalances the constellation of beliefs containing the critical attitude. It is stabilized by modifying related beliefs. These propositions were tested by uncovering links among a set of attitudes and developing persuasive messages on 1 of them. The messages were attributed to majority or in-group minority sources. Strong messages fostered persistent focal attitude change. When attributed to a minority, strong messages induced indirect attitude change, which was associated with delayed focal change. For the majority source, positivity of cognitive responses was related to focal change; for the minority, it was related to indirect change. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2011 APA, all rights reserved)     

Information utility and the multiple source effect.

We report 3 experiments that are consistent with the view that multiple sources enhance message processing because of recipients' perceptions that information from multiple sources is more likely to be based on different perspectives and independent pools of knowledge and, thus, more worthy of diligent consideration. Specifically, in Experiment I we found that persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments was eliminated when the sources were said to have formed a committee rather than being independent. In Experiment 2, we found that the committee manipulation eliminated the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments only when this information was available prior to argument exposure and not when it was provided after exposure. In Experiment 3, subjects were led to believe that the multiple sources who formed a committee were either very similar or dissimilar. When the committee was believed to include members with similar perspectives, the persuasive advantage of multiple sources presenting strong arguments was eliminated, but when the committee was believed to include members with dissimilar perspectives, the persuasive advantage of multiple sources was retained. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Source entitativity and the elaboration of persuasive messages: The roles of perceived efficacy and message discrepancy.

Compared with nonentitative groups, entitative targets are considered to elicit more elaborative processing because of the singularity or unity they represent. However, when groups serve as sources of persuasive messages, other dynamics may operate. The current research suggests that entitativity is intrinsically linked to perceptions of a group’s efficacy related to the advocacy, and this efficacy combines with the position of the appeal to determine message elaboration. When messages are counterattitudinal, entitative (efficacious) sources should elicit greater processing than nonentitative groups because of concern that the entitative sources may be more likely to bring about the negative outcomes proposed. However, when appeals are proattitudinal, sources low in entitativity (nonefficacious) should initiate more elaboration due to concern that they may be unlikely to facilitate the positive outcomes proposed. These hypotheses were supported in a series of studies. Preliminary studies established the entitativity–efficacy relation (Studies 1A and 1B). Primary persuasion studies showed that manipulations of source entitativity (Studies 2 and 3) and source efficacy (Studies 4A and 4B) have opposite effects on processing as a function of message discrepancy. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Conceptual-motor compatibility and homonegativity: Approaching and avoiding words associated with homosexuality.

Two studies explored conceptual-motor compatibility effects underlying attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women. In Study 1, we tested if attitudes toward gay men and lesbian women would influence whether or not participants chose to engage in, and how quickly they engaged in, approach or avoidance motor movements. Participants responded to homosexual and heterosexual words on a computer screen by choosing to push (avoidance movement) or pull (approach movement) a computer mouse. Findings indicated that participants who were high in prejudice chose to make more prejudice-compatible motor responses than did participants who were low in prejudice. In Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to a prejudice-compatible or prejudice-incompatible motor movements condition. Results indicated that highly prejudiced participants were faster to complete prejudice-compatible motor movements than were low prejudice participants. Implications for implicit attitudes and measuring prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Majority and minority influence: Source-position imbalance as a determinant of message scrutiny.

Two experiments addressed the issue of whether endorsement of a position by a numerical majority or a minority leads to greater scrutiny of the information presented in a persuasive message. In Exp 1, a counterattitudinal position was endorsed by a majority or a minority and was supported by strong or weak arguments. Argument quality had a larger impact on attitudes with majority than with minority endorsement. In Exp 2, a proattitudinal or a counterattitudinal message was endorsed by a majority or a minority and was supported by strong or weak arguments. When the source and message position were unexpected (i.e., majority-counter and minority-pro messages), argument quality had a larger impact on attitudes than when the source and message position were expected (i.e., majority-pro and minority-counter messages). Thus, either majority or minority endorsement can enhance message scrutiny if the source-position pairing is surprising. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one's worldview.

The present research used validated cardiovascular measures to examine threat reactions among members of stigmatized groups when interacting with members of nonstigmatized groups who were, or were not, prejudiced against their group. The authors hypothesized that people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system would moderate their experience of threat during intergroup interactions. The authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the status system is fair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would disconfirm their worldview and result in greater threat. In contrast, the authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the system is unfair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would confirm their worldview and result in less threat. The authors examined these predictions among Latinas interacting with a White female confederate (Study 1) and White females interacting with a White male confederate (Study 2). As predicted, people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system moderated their experiences of threat during intergroup interactions, indicated both by cardiovascular responses and nonverbal behavior. The specific pattern of the moderation differed across the 2 studies. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Persuasiveness of in-group and out-group political messages: The case of negative political campaigning.

Two experiments investigated the processes underlying evaluation of in-group and out-group political messages from candidates involved in a negative political campaign. The effectiveness of different types of attack messages depended on (a) the political affiliation with the source and target of an attack message and (b) the justification provided for the attack. Experiment 1 demonstrated that the content of the attack messages affected evaluations of an in-group candidate but not of an out-group candidate. Experiment 2 indicated that the use of "apparent justification" for attack messages resulted in more positive evaluations of an out-group source but diminished preference for an in-group source. The results indicate that although participants were sensitive to message content from both in-group and out-group sources, less stringent criteria were used when evaluating out-group political messages that when evaluating in-group political messages. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Putting the "affirm" into affirmative action: Preferential selection and academic performance.

Two studies explored the relation between academic performance and preferential selection. In Study 1, female participants were led to believe that they had been selected to be leaders in a team problem-solving task because of their gender, because of their gender and ability, or at random. Results showed that women who believed they had been selected because of their gender performed significantly worse on a subsequent problem-solving test than women who believed they had been selected at random and women who believed they were selected because of both their gender and their ability. In Study 2, students' suspicion of having benefited from race-based preferences in college admissions was negatively related to their grade point average (GPA). Furthermore, this suspicion partially mediated the GPA gap between academically stigmatized (Black and Latino) and nonstigmatized (Caucasian and Asian) students. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma.

Although several psychological theories predict that members of stigmatized groups should have low global self-esteem, empirical research typically does not support this prediction. It is proposed here that this discrepancy may be explained by considering the ways in which membership in a stigmatized group may protect the self-concept. It is proposed that members of stigmatized groups may (a) attribute negative feedback to prejudice against their group, (b) compare their outcomes with those of the ingroup, rather than with the relatively advantaged outgroup, and (c) selectively devalue those dimensions on which their group fares poorly and value those dimensions on which their group excels. Evidence for each of these processes and their consequences for self-esteem and motivation is reviewed. Factors that moderate the use of these strategies and implications of this analysis for treatment of stigmas are also discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Race of source effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model.

In a series of experiments, we investigated the effect of race of source on persuasive communications in the Elaboration Likelihood Model (R. E. Petty & J. T. Cacioppo, 1981, 1986). In Exp 1, we found no evidence that White participants responded to a Black source as a simple negative cue. Exp 2 suggested the possibility that exposure to a Black source led to low-involvement message processing. In Exps 3 and 4, a distraction paradigm was used to test this possibility, and it was found that participants under low involvement were highly motivated to process a message presented by a Black source. In Exp 5, we found that attitudes toward the source's ethnic group, rather than violations of expectancies, accounted for this processing effect. Taken together, the results of these experiments are consistent with S. L. Gaertner and J. F. Dovidio's (1986) theory of aversive racism, which suggests that Whites, because of a combination of egalitarian values and underlying negative racial attitudes, are very concerned about not appearing unfavorable toward Blacks, leading them to be highly motivated to process messages presented by a source from this group. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

When do the stigmatized stigmatize? The ironic effects of being accountable to (perceived) majority group prejudice-expression norms.

How do frequently stigmatized individuals feel about and respond to members of other potentially stigmatizable groups? Four studies demonstrated that perceptions of majority group norms regarding prejudice expression can shape how minority individuals respond to minority individuals from other groups. Study 1 revealed that Black and White men and women have somewhat different perceptions of Whites' norms regarding prejudice expression. Study 2 manipulated whether evaluations of Native American job candidates were to remain private or to be made public to unfamiliar Whites upon whom the evaluators were dependent: Black men used a strategy of publicly (but not privately) denigrating the minority target to conform to presumed prejudice-expression norms. Study 3, in which the authors explicitly manipulated prejudice-expression norms, and Study 4, in which they manipulated audience race, further supported the role of such norms in eliciting public discrimination against minority group members by other minority group members. The desire to avoid being targeted for discrimination, in conjunction with the perception that the majority endorses discrimination, appears to increase the likelihood that the often-stigmatized will stigmatize others. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Role Rigidity: A Problem of Identity Misclassification?

When nonstigmatized individuals enact certain role-violating behaviors, they risk becoming "falsely accused deviants" (H. S. Becker, 1963, p. 20). For instance, when heterosexual men perform stereotypically feminine behaviors, they are liable to get misclassified as homosexual. Findings presented here reveal that expectations of identity misclassification fuel nonstigmatized individuals' negative reactions to role violations (Studies 1-2) and that using a disclaimer--that is, informing their audience of their nonstigmatized identity--assuages people's discomfort during a role-violating behavior (Studies 3-4). Moreover, when not concerned about being misclassified, nonstigmatized individuals benefit psychologically from the enactment of a challenging role violation (Study 4). Discussion considers the nature of the threat that misclassified role violators face and compares the plight of the falsely accused deviant to that of the truly stigmatized individual. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization.

The authors studied social norms and prejudice using M. Sherif and C. W. Sherif's (1953) group norm theory of attitudes. In 7 studies (N=1, 504), social norms were measured and manipulated to examine their effects on prejudice; both normatively proscribed and normatively prescribed forms of prejudice were included. The public expression of prejudice toward 105 social groups was very highly correlated with social approval of that expression. Participants closely adhere to social norms when expressing prejudice, evaluating scenarios of discrimination, and reacting to hostile jokes. The authors reconceptualized the source of motivation to suppress prejudice in terms of identifying with new reference groups and adapting oneself to fit new norms. Suppression scales seem to measure patterns of concern about group norms rather than personal commitments to reducing prejudice; high suppressors are strong norm followers. Compared with low suppressors, high suppressors follow normative rules more closely and are more strongly influenced by shifts in local social norms. There is much value in continuing the study of normative influence and self-adaptation to social norms, particularly in terms of the group norm theory of attitudes. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Regulating affect interpersonally: When low esteem leads to greater enhancement.

We tested the hypothesis that low self-esteem persons use self-presentation to improve their affect. In Experiments 1–3, Ss high in self-esteem (HSE) and low in self-esteem (LSE) responded publicly or privately to positive or negative feedback from a computer "personality test" (Experiments 1 and 2) or from a peer (Experiment 3). In public, LSE Ss complimented positive sources and derogated negative sources more than their counterparts did. Experiment 2 showed that this was not due to another person's awareness of the feedback, ruling out a strict impression management interpretation. In Experiment 4, some Ss were coaxed to compliment the source of feedback and others were coaxed to derogate the source of feedback. When publicly complimenting positive feedback or derogating negative feedback, LSE Ss generally showed a rise in esteem relative to their counterparts. Based on these findings, a model of affect regulation in interpersonal relations is proposed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)     

Hypnosis, suggestion, and placebo in the reduction of experimental pain.

Two experiments compared placebo and hypnotic analgesia in high and low hypnotizable subjects. Experiment 1 demonstrated that hypnotic and placebo analgesia were equally ineffective in low hypnotizables, but that hypnotic analgesia was much more effective than placebo analgesia in high hypnotizables. Experiment 2 replicated these results, but also included low and high hypnotizables who were given a nonhypnotic suggestion for analgesia. Both the low and high hypnotizables in this group reported greater suggested than placebo analgesia and as much suggested analgesia as high hypnotizable hypnotic subjects. Both experiments found substantial discrepancies between the amount of pain reduction subjects expected from the various treatments and the amount of pain reduction they actually reported following exposure to those treatments. In Experiment 2, subjects in all treatments who reduced reported pain engaged in more cognitive coping and less catastrophizing than those who did not reduce pain. Theoretical implications are discussed. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2010 APA, all rights reserved)