 

.UBRARY
Michigan State
University

 

 

 

PLACE IN RETURN BOX to remove this checkout from your record.
To AVOID FINES return on or before date due.
MAY BE RECALLED with earlier due date if requested.

 

DATE DUE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

6/01 cJCIRC/DatoDuo.p65.p.15

STIGMA MANAGEMENT AND COGNITIVE RESOURCES:
THE EFFECTS OF VISIBILITY AND EXPERIENCE

13y

William Allen Jellison

A DISSERTATION

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulﬁllment of the requirements
for the degree of

DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
Department of Psychology

2004 A

ABSTRACT

STIGMA MANAGEMENT AND COGNITIVE RESOURCES:
THE EFFECTS OF VISIBILITY AND EXPERIENCE

By

William Allen J ellison
In two studies, the level of cognitive resources required to engage in the process of stigma
management was explored. It was hypothesized that the level of cognitive resources would
differ as a function of stigma management strategy (afﬁrming vs. negating), visibility of the
stigma (visible vs. non-visible), and experience with the stigma (newly-acquired vs. long-term
experience). Results did not support hypothesized differences in cognitive resources as a
function of impression management strategy type, however visibility did have an effect in Study
1 with greater cognitive resources depletion occurring when the stigma was visible versus non-
visible. In addition, Study 2 provided some evidence that experience reduces the level of
cognitive resources required when enacting afﬁrming strategies with a non-visible stigma. The
inﬂuences of various individual difference (Study 1) and stigma experience-related (Study 2)
factors on cognitive resources were also assessed. Finally, affective reactions to being
stigmatized and the effectiveness of these stigma management strategies were explored. The
implications and effectiveness of using these strategies for people who are stigmatized are

discussed.

To James Mark Botelho, my souhnate and life partner, for being there when it seemed

like no one else was. You know I could not have done this without you — Always.

iii

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

Foremost, I must express my gratitude to the co-chairs of my committee, Debbie
Kashy and Isis Settles, for their guidance, support, and, especially their willingness to
give me prompt feedback when I needed it most. In addition, I must thank the rest of my
dissertation committee, Cheryl Kaiser, and Gwen Wittenbaum, for sharing their
experience and giving me direction throughout this process. Sometimes the advice was
difﬁcult to hear, but I appreciate the honesty. I know I will be a better researcher and
academic because of it.

Furthermore, I must acknowledge other Michigan State University Psychology
faculty, both past and present, who have assisted me throughout my graduate career:
Allen McConnell, Larry Messé, Norb Kerr, Rich Lucas, Brent Donnellan, Shira Gabriel,
Tom Carr, and many others. Also, to the MSU graduate students who have offered their
time, skills, and an occasional shoulder: Jeanette Renaud, Ernest Park, Joan Poulsen,
Brendan Baird, Jen Pratt-Hyatt, Portia Dyrenforth, Kimdy Le, and Sian Beilock. Lastly,
to all of the undergraduate assistants, without your energy and dedication, this research
would never have been accomplished. All of your support, both academically and
personally, has been immeasurable.

I must also thank my non-academic friends and family who have helped me
through this. Your attempts at trying to keep me sane did not go unnoticed. Thank you
for sticking by me when I was “too busy,” “too tired,” or just “stressed out.”

Finally, I must thank James for his unwavering love and support and for proving

to me on a daily basis that I am truly capable of loving another human being.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES .................................................................................. vii
INTRODUCTION .................................................................................... 1
Stigma Management ........................................................................ 2
Stigma Management Strategies ............................................................ 3
Negation .............................................................................. 4

Afﬁrmation .......................................................................... 5

The Use of Cognitive Resources in Impression Management ......................... 6
Factors Inﬂuencing Cognitive Resources used in Stigma Management ............. 7
Visibility ............................................................................. 8
Experience ........................................................................... 9

STUDY 1 ............................................................................................. 12
Individual Difference Factors ............................................................ 12
Affective Responses to Being Stigmatized ............................................. 14
Overview .................................................................................... 15
Research questions and hypotheses ...................................................... 16
Exploratory research questions ........................................................... 16
Method ....................................................................................... 17
Participants ......................................................................... 17

Measures ........................................................................... 17

Procedure ........................................................................... 22

Results ....................................................................................... 27
Manipulation Check and Suspicion ............................................. 27
Main Hypothesis Tests ............................................................ 30

Individual Difference Factors ................................................... 34

Affective Responses to Being Stigmatized .................................... 42

Discussion ................................................................................... 45
STUDY 2 ............................................................................................. 51
Experience with Stigma Management ................................................... 51
Stigma Experience-Related Factors — Importance and Awareness .................. 52
Affective Responses to Being Stigrnatized ............................................. 54
Effectiveness of Stigma Management Strategies ....................................... 54
Overview .................................................................................... 56
Hypotheses and research questions ...................................................... 56
Method — Part 1 ............................................................................. 59
Participants ......................................................................... 59

Measures ........................................................................... 60

Procedure ........................................................................... 63

Method - Part 2 ............................................................................ 66

Participants ......................................................................... 66

Measures ............................................................................ 66
Procedure ........................................................................... 67
Results — Part 1 ............................................................................. 68
Manipulation Check and Suspicion ............................................. 68
Main Hypothesis Tests ............................................................ 71
Stigma Experience-Related Factors ............................................. 75
Affect Responses to the Interaction Task ...................................... 93
Results — Part 2 ............................................................................. 98
Effectiveness of stigma management strategy ................................. 98
Discussion ................................................................................. 102
GENERAL DISCUSSION ....................................................................... 106
Stigma Management and Cognitive Resources: The Effects of Experience and
Visibility ................................................................................... 106
Individual Difference and Stigma Experience-Related Factors .................... 109
Affective Responses of the Stigmatized and Responses ﬁom Others ............. 110
Cognitive Measures ....................................................................... 11 1
Limitations ................................................................................. 1 13
Role-playing paradigm .......................................................... 1 13
Different stigmas across studies ................................................ 113
Conclusion ................................................................................. l 14
APPENDICES ..................................................................................... 1 17
Appendix A: Demographic questionnaire ............................................. 118
Appendix B: Self-Consciousness Scale (Fenigstein et al., 1975) .................. 120
Appendix C: Self-Presentational Concern Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984) ...... 121
Appendix D: Modiﬁed version of the State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton &
Polivy, 1991) .............................................................................. 122
Appendix E: Cognitive Depletion Measure (General Mental Abilities Test; J anda,
1996) ....................................................................................... 123
Appendix F: Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson et al.,
1988) ....................................................................................... 128
Appendix G: Scenarios for Study 1 .................................................... 129
Appendix H: Centrality subscale (Sellers et al., 1997) .............................. 134
Appendix I: Race version of the Stigma-Consciousness Questionnaire (Pinel,
1999) ....................................................................................... 135
Appendix J: Morgan (2002) Impression Management scale ........................ 136
Appendix K: Scenarios for Study 2 .................................................... 137
REFERENCES .................................................................................... 142

vi

LIST OF TABLES

Table 1. Zero-order correlations of post-interaction cognitive measures for Study 1......31

Table 2. Means and standard deviations for the cognitive depletion measures and
cognitive resource measure for Study 1 .......................................................... 32

Table 3. Zero-order correlations of individual difference measures for Study 1..........35

Table 4. Zero-order correlations of individual difference measures and performance
variables for Study 1. .............................................................................. 36

Table 5. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, public self-
consciousness, impression management strategies and visibility experimental
manipulations, and their interactions among participants in Study 1 ........................ 37

Table 6. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, performance
self-esteem, impression management strategies and visibility experimental manipulations,
and their interactions among participants in Study 1 ........................................... 40
Table 7. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, social self-

esteem, impression management strategies and visibility experimental manipulations, and
their interactions among participants in Study 1 ................................................ 41

Table 8. Means and standard deviations for the affective reactions measures for Study
1 ........................................................................................................ 44

Table 9. Zero-order correlations of post-interaction cognitive measures for Study 2. . ....71

Table 10. Means and standard deviations for the cognitive depletion measures and
cognitive resource measure for Study 2 ...................................................... 72-73

Table 11. Zero-order correlations of stigma-related measures for Study 2 .................. 76
Table 12. Differences in stigma-related measures as a function of race in Study 2 ....... 77
Table 13. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, racial
centrality, impression management strategies, visibility manipulation, race of participant,
and their interactions among participants in Study 2 ........................................... 79
Table 14. Simple slope regression analyses for racial centrality, visibility, and their

interaction predicting the number of items correct on the cognitive depletion measure for
Aﬁ'ican American and Caucasian participants in Study 2 ..................................... 8O

vii

Table 15. Multiple regression analyses for racial centrality, strategy, visibility, and their
interaction predicting the number of items skipped on the cognitive depletion measure for
African American and Caucasian participants in Study 2 ..................................... 81

Table 16. Multiple regression analyses for racial centrality, strategy, visibility, and their
interaction predicting the number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion measure
for African American and Caucasian participants in Study 2 ................................. 83

Table 17. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, stigma
consciousness, impression management strategies, visibility manipulation, race of
participant, and their interactions among participants in Study 2 ............................. 84

Table 18. Multiple regression analyses for stigma consciousness, strategy, visibility, and
their interaction predicting the number of items correct on the cognitive depletion
measure for African American and Caucasian participants in Study 2 ...................... 86

Table 19. Multiple regression analyses for stigma consciousness, strategy, visibility, and
their interaction predicting the number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion
measure for African American and Caucasian participants in Study 2 ...................... 88

Table 20. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, use of
afﬁrmation stigma management strategies, impression management strategies, visibility
manipulation, race of participant, and their interactions among participants in Study 2.89

Table 21. Multiple regression analyses for the use of afﬁrmation stigma management
strategies, strategy, and their interaction predicting the number of items attempted on the
cognitive depletion measure for African American and Caucasian participants in Study

2 ........................................................................................................ 92

Table 22. Multiple regression analyses for the use of afﬁrmation stigma management
strategies, visibility, and their interaction predicting the number of items skipped on the
cognitive depletion measure for Aﬁ'ican American and Caucasian participants in Study

2 ........................................................................................................ 92

Table 23. Means and standard deviations for the affective reactions measures and rating
of interview items for Study 2 ................................................................. 96-98

Table 24. Means and standard deviations for the ratings of participants in Study
2 ................................................................................................................................ 100-102

viii

INTRODUCTION

Everyone attempts to manage the impressions that they make on others to some
degree, and people use a variety of techniques in doing so (see Leary, 1996; Leary &
Kowalski, 1990; Schlenker, 1980; Tice & Faber, 2001). Impression management is the
process of controlling information about various aspects of the self in a social context
(Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Impression management is accomplished primarily by
emphasizing positive characteristics about the self; however, for some people, impression
management involves managing a characteristic that others view as negative (Crocker,
Major, & Steele, 1998; Goffrnan, 1963; Jones, Farina, Hastorf, Markus, Miller, & Scott,
1984). The current work discusses impression management techniques utilized by
individuals who are stigmatized, and explores factors that may inﬂuence the cognitive
resources required to engage in these stigma management techniques.

Within social psychology, a stigma is generally deﬁned as the “possession or
perceived possession of an attribute that conveys a negatively valued social identity” (p.
505; Crocker et al., 1998). In the United States, these negative attributes include a wide
variety of social categories to which one belongs (e. g., women, people of color, gays and
lesbians, people with low socioeconomic status, people with eating disorders, people with
mental illnesses, women who are heavyweight, and people who have a physical
disability; Crocker et al., 1998; Goffman, 1965). Impression management strategies
among stigmatized individuals are likely used in everyday interactions for many of the
same reasons that they are used by non-stigmatized individuals (see Jones & Pittman,
1982; Leary, 1996). In general, individuals try to manage the impressions they convey to

ﬁt in with and be accepted by others (Baumeister & Leary, 1995); to maintain power or

control over another (Tice & Faber, 2001); to gain or maintain a valuable resource or
obtain a desired goal (e.g., money, time, job, promotion; Leary, 1996); or to reinforce
their views regarding their own self-concept and ultimately boost their self-esteem
(Baumeister, 1998). However, although similar to general impression management,
impression management among the stigmatized involves a unique combination of issues.
The current work explored how the visibility of and the level of experience with the
stigrnatizing attribute affects the cognitive resources required when employing these
stigma management techniques.
Stigma Management

Stigma management is the process of strategic impression management, or self-
presentation, involving altering the negative perceptions that others may have of a person
because of the negative attribute that they hold (Cain, 1991). This negative attribute may
be relevant to many social interactions because it is used to simplify information in the
social environment and to make sense of social experiences. The stigmatizing attribute
may be seen by non-stigmatized others as an important distinguishing feature used to
label and interpret the behaviors of the stigmatized individual during social interactions
(Biemat & Dovidio, 2000; Fiske, 1998; Frable, Blackstone, & Scherbaum, 1990; Stryker,
1987). In addition, the negative attribute may be used by the stigmatized individual as a
way of interpreting the negative and positive reactions of others in his or her social world
(Crocker, Lutanen, Blaine, & Broadnax, 1994; Crocker, Lutanen, Broadnax, & Blaine,
1999). Often this socially undesirable part of one’s self may become an aspect that is an
important part of the stigmatized individual’s self-deﬁnition (Bohan, 1996; Stryker &

Serpe, 1994).

For many stigmatized individuals this negative attribute is visible to others and
can have a great impact on the success of the social interaction (Jones et al., 1984).
When a stigrnatizing attribute is visible or somehow known to their interaction partner,
the stigmatized person faces the chance of being negatively evaluated because of it
(Goffman, 1965). A stigma is said to be conspicuous, or visible, when it is obvious to
others (e.g., race for African Americans, person in a wheelchair); and non-visible, or
concealable, when it can be easily hidden (e.g., homosexuality, possessing an eating
disorder). However, regardless of whether the stigmatizing attribute is visible or non-
visible, the stigmatized individual may carry the devalued identity across many social
contexts (Goffrnan, 1963; Jones etal., 1984; McNaught, 1993; Miller & Kaiser, 2001).
As suggested by Frable et a1. (1990), people who deviate from the norm (as well as their
interaction partners when the stigrnatizing attribute is visible) are particularly “mindful”
of the stigma in social interactions. Because of this, many stigmatized individuals
strategically present or withhold stigma-relevant information in an effort to minimize the
negative inﬂuence of the stigma during social interactions.
Stigma Management Strategies

Research conducted in psychology and sociology has explored impression
management techniques among stigmatized groups such as racial minorities (e. g.,
Morgan, 2002; Roberts, Settles, Jellison, & Carswell, under review), gays and lesbians
(e. g., Cain, 1991; Humphreys, 1972), heavyweight individuals (e.g., Miller & Myers,
1998), women in male-dominated professions (Roberts et al., under review; Settles,
2004), women who have had abortions (Major & Gramzow, 1999), the physically-

challenged (e.g., Braithwaite, 1991; Taub, Blinde, & Greer, 1999), and couples who have

chosen not to have children (Park, 2002). Although these researchers have used different
terms to describe the stigma management techniques used by these groups, two general
strategies tend to be implemented by stigmatized individuals when managing the
impressions they make on non-stigmatized others (Cain, 1991; Morgan, 2002; Taj fel &
Turner, 1979). In general, individuals with social stigmas, whether they are conspicuous
or concealable, can deny that the stigma exists, avoid discussing it, and emphasize
different, more positive attributes through a process of negation; or they can openly
discuss the stigrnatizing attribute in an attempt to emphasize the positive qualities of it
and educate others about the stigma through a process of aﬂirmation.

Negation. Stigrnatized group members who use negation may choose to hide
their stigma, avoid discussion of the negative attribute, or minimize the relevance that it
has in any given social interaction. A variety of terms have been used to describe this
group of strategies such as counterfeiting (Woods, 1993), passing (Humphreys, 1972),
avoidance (Chrobot-Mason, Button, & DiClementi, 2001), heading off (Miller & Myers,
1998), and social recategorization (Morgan, 2002).

When one’s stigma is concealable (non-visible), members of stigmatized groups
may use negation in the form of trying to appear as a member of another social group.
This type of stigma management may involve elaborate deception that goes as far as
creating a fake life that is presented to others. It may also involve avoiding the
discussion of topics that shed light on one’s personal life, as might be the case for some

gay and lesbian individuals who attempt to appear heterosexual among their colleagues

(Troiden, 1993).

When the stigma is visible, individuals may use negation by diminishing the
salience that the stigrnatizing attribute has in the social interaction. For example, women
in careers that are dominated by men may choose to minimize the salience of their gender
by wearing less make-up or reﬁ'aining from wearing clothes that would be considered
“feminine” (e.g., dresses or skirts; Rafaeli, Dutton, Harquail, & Mackie-Lewis, 1997). In
addition, while attempting to avoid discussing the negative attribute, members of
stigmatized groups may choose to emphasize other positive qualities they possess, or
social identities they belong to, that are unrelated to the stigmatizing characteristic. For
example, when interacting with Caucasian students, Aﬁican American college students
may draw attention to school activities they share with these students in an effort to
minimize racial differences.

Aﬂirmation. Another group of strategies used by members of stigmatized
individuals involves afﬁrming one’s membership in a stigmatized group by emphasizing
its positive qualities, educating others, and, in so doing, demonstrating that the
stigmatized group has value. A variety of terms have been used to describe afﬁrming
techniques including positive self-talk (Miller & Myers, 1998), being out (Gonsiorek,
1995), positive‘distinctiveness (Morgan, 2002), and integrating (Woods, 1993).

When one’s stigma is not readily apparent to others, stigmatized individuals may
use afﬁrming techniques by wearing symbols or buttons that acknowledge the fact that
they are group members. For example, gay men and lesbian women may choose to wear
buttons or clothing containing rainbows or pink triangles in an effort to express their

sexuality to others (Cain, 1991). In addition, people with concealable stigmas may

choose to verbally express and acknowledge their stigma to others during social
interactions. By using these tactics, the concealable stigma is made visible.

When the stigma is visible, stigmatized individuals who use afﬁrmation
techniques do not try to hide or minimize the stigrnatizing attribute. Instead, they choose
to educate others about the stigma in an effort to show it in a more positive light to raise
the status of the group in society (Morgan, 2002). For example, heavyweight people may
choose to emphasize their value in society and educate others about being overweight
(Miller & Myers, 1998) and people with physical disabilities may get involved with
physical sports (Taub et al., 1999) in an effort to demonstrate that they are comfortable
with their bodies and to put others at ease.

The Use of Cognitive Resources in Impression Management

Utilizing impression management techniques involves both automatic and
controlled cognitive processes (Baumeister, Hutton, & Tice, 1989; Tice & Faber, 2001).
Automatic cognitive processes are those that occur outside of awareness and do not
expend limited cognitive resources (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). In everyday social
interactions, much impression management occurs automatically outside of the
impression manager’s awareness (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000) and generally involves
portraying oneself in a positive light (Baumeister et al., 1989). These processes guide
behaviors that are well learned and triggered by cues in one’s social environment. Over
time, growing up in a given culture, people learn what is appropriate for certain social
interactions in both their overt behaviors and in the attributes of the self that are
appropriate to disclose (Derlega, Metts, Petronio, & Margulis, 1993). Making a positive

impression may involve behaviors that occur without the explicit awareness of the

individual (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Thus, using impression management techniques
that are more automatic require the use of fewer cognitive resources during the social
interaction.

Controlled processes, on the other hand, are those that people are aware of and
monitor. There are times when impression management becomes more important, or
people ﬁnd themselves in a novel situation. This controlled management of impressions
requires more cognitive resources (Baumeister et al., 1989). Controlled processes deplete
limited cognitive resources because of the effort they require (Bargh, 1989). Cognitive
load is the taxing and depleting of one’s limited available cognitive resources. Thus, the
controlled management of impressions should cause an increase in cognitive load
(Schlenker & Pontari, 2000).

Impression management is especially susceptible to cognitive load when enacting
a role incongruent with one’s self-image (Pontari & Schlenker, 2001). When people are
trying to behave in a manner different from how they feel they truly are, they need to
monitor their actions to make sure that inconsistent verbal and nonverbal behavior does
not “leak out” (DePaulo, 1993). In addition, they may need to monitor the behaviors of
their interaction partner to be sure that the fake role is believable (Wegner & Giuliano,
1982). Enacting such an incongruent role takes up cognitive resources that shifts one’s
attention away from the situation, impairing one’s capacity to encode and recall
information about a social interaction (Baumeister et al., 1989).

Factors Inﬂuencing Cognitive Resources Used in Stigma Management
One situation when a person may be forced to enact a role that is incongruent with

his or her self-concept is when strategically managing the inﬂuence that a stigrnatizing

attribute has during a social interaction. Overall, members of stigmatized groups may use
negation and afﬁrmation techniques to varying degrees. However, for some members of
stigmatized groups using particular strategies may require greater cognitive resources
than other strategies. There are important factors that can inﬂuence the level of cognitive
resources required when strategically enacting these stigma management techniques.

Visibility. Although limited research has been conducted exploring how the
visibility of a stigma inﬂuences the impressions that stigmatized individuals make on
others, whether stigmatized individuals can conceal the stigma or not has important
psychological implications for them and their social interactions. Foremost, if the
stigrnatizing attribute is concealable then the stigmatized individual can choose whether
to disclose it to others (Crocker et al., 1998). Therefore, when the stigrnatizing attribute
is not visible, there are more stigma management strategies that can be used during a
social interaction. By choosing to conceal a non-visible stigma, individuals can reduce
the impact that this attribute has on the social interaction (Santuzzi & Ruscher, 2002).
Thus, successfully concealing a negative stigma may reduce the cognitive resources
needed to make a positive impression.

For visible stigmas, the inﬂuence that this “discrediting mark” has on others must
be managed (Goffrnan, 1963). Visible stigmas are more salient than concealed (non-
visible) stigmas in social interactions and thus, people with visible stigmas are more
likely to be evaluated by others in terms of the negative attribute (Braithwaite, 1991;
Goffman, 1965, Jones et al., 1984). Even though stigma management may be more
necessary when the stigma is visible, the utility of some strategies (e.g., some types of

negation) may be limited. That is, if a stigma is visible, the stigmatized individual cannot

deny that the stigma exists, leaving downplaying the stigma as the negating option. Thus,
visibility may force the stigmatized individual to use afﬁrming techniques to reduce the
negative effects of the stigma. Using these stigma management techniques to reduce the
negative impact of the stigma may require a great deal of cognitive resources (Miller &
Myers, 1998).

Experience. The level of experience with impression management techniques in
general, and stigma management techniques speciﬁcally, should inﬂuence the degree to
which cognitive resources are required. Stigma management strategies that are consistent
with one’s self-concept should place less of a demand on cognitive resources (Schlenker
& Pontari, 2000). Given that those qualities that are consistent with one’s self-concept
should be seen as more positive, it should be easier (less cognitively taxing) to utilize
strategies that reinforce positive aspects of the self (Tice & F arber, 2001).

For people with newly-acquired stigmas, the stigrnatizing attribute is novel. Thus,
they may see this new aspect of the self (i.e., this new stigma) as “incongruent” with their
current self-image. Because stigma management should require the greatest cognitive
resources when attempting to enact a role that is incongruent with one’s self-image, for
people with newly acquired stigmas, it may actually be easier to use negation techniques
and avoid discussion of the stigrnatizing attribute. Thus, for people with newly-acquired
stigmas, using negating strategies may require less effort than using afﬁrming strategies,
especially when a stigrnatizing attribute is non-visible, because, as long as the stigma is
avoided, the effects of the stigma and the reactions of others do not need to be managed.

However, experience with stigma management may facilitate use of more diverse

strategies. Even the most deliberate self-presentational strategies may become automatic

over time, thus requiring less cognitive resources (Shank & Ableson, 1977). Among
stigmatized individuals, impression management techniques should be easier the longer
the individual has had to cope with the stigrnatizing attribute. Over time individuals may
gain the skills necessary to perform these stigma management techniques, and so they
should become more automatic and thus require less cognitive capacity. Once these
techniques have become automatic, they can be used in more situations where cognitive
resources may be limited. Thus, stigma management techniques should become easier as
the individual acquires more experience (Smart & Wegner, 1999). Furthermore, in time
this stigrnatizing trait may actually become part of one’s self-concept (Deaux & Ethier,
1998). Given that it should require less cognitive resources to manage a stigrnatizing
attribute that is consistent with one’s self-concept, for people with more experience, using
afﬁrming techniques should require fewer cognitive resources than using negating
techniques (Paulhas, Graf, & van Selst, 1989). In addition, given that they have more
experience dealing with the stigma in multiple social interactions, and that they may have
come to see the stigrnatizing attribute as more positive, visibility should have less of an
effect on the level of cognitive resources required.

In short, stigma management techniques should require varying levels of
cognitive resources. In addition, the visibility of the stigma and the level of experience
with the stigma should inﬂuence the amount of cognitive resources required for stigma
management during a social interaction. However, little research has explored these
factors among stigmatized individuals. Study 1 explored these processes among people

assigned a newly-acquired stigma (i.e., being physically-challenged), and Study 2

10

explored these processes among people with a newly-acquired racial stigma and people

with racial stigma management experience.

11

STUDY 1

The ﬁrst study examined whether visibility of stigma and strategy type had an
impact on the level of cognitive resources necessary for stigma management techniques
for individuals with a “newly-acquired” stigma. In addition, Study 1 also explored two
other research questions pertaining to those who have little experience with stigma
management. The ﬁrst exploratory research question addressed whether other factors
that inﬂuence general impression management would have similar effects on the
management of a stigma, thereby reducing the level of cognitive resources required. The
second research question explored the affective reactions to using these stigma
management strategies.

Individual Difference Factors

Given that stigma management is a form of general impression management,
those individual difference factors that inﬂuence impression management in general
should also inﬂuence the managing of one’s stigma. These factors, once they become
automatic components of one’s thought processes during social interactions, may
inﬂuence the amount of cognitive resources required when attempting to manage a
newly-acquired stigma.

People vary to the extent that they are aware of themselves as social objects
(Schlenker & Weigold, 1990). Some people are chronically aware of themselves and
how their actions may inﬂuence others (i.e., self-conscious). In addition, some people
tend to be more anxious in social situations about whether they are making a desired
impression (i.e., social anxiety). F urtherrnore, some people are more concerned about the

impressions that they make on others and whether they are able to change the impression

12

that they make (i.e., concerned about self-presentation; Leary & Kowalski, 1990).
Sometimes, this awareness leads to desires to create an impression that is consistent with
how one views oneself (Jones & Pittman, 1982).

Being consciously aware of oneself and monitoring one’s actions during a social
interaction requires cognitive resources. However, for those individuals who are
chronically aware of themselves as social objects, these processes should become more
automatic, requiring less cognitive resources (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Thus, stigma
management strategies should be easier (i.e., be less demanding on cognitive resources)
for people who are more aware of the presence of others and who are more concerned
about the impressions they are making. Furthermore, using afﬁrming strategies (i.e.,
creating a positive impression) should require fewer cognitive resources for people who
are more aware of how their actions inﬂuence others and are more concerned about the
impression that they are making in social interactions. However, anxiety may deplete
cognitive resources because of an increase in distracting thoughts (Leary, 1996).
Moreover, people who are more socially anxious may be more adept at using negation
strategies, because of their experience with attempting to reduce the negative tension
during social interactions (Leary, 1996).

Furthermore, research has demonstrated that one’s self-esteem can inﬂuence
his/her ability to engage in self-presentational processes (e.g., Jones, Rhodewalt, Berglas,
& Skelton, 1981). People may vary in these positive feelings depending upon the domain
or skill in question (i.e., state self-esteem; Heatherton & Polivy, 1991). State self-esteem
may inﬂuence one’s ability to engage in self-presentational strategies because people

high in self-esteem have different motives than people low in self-esteem (Baumeister et

13

al., 1989; Leary, 1996). Whereas people with low self-esteem may be chronically
motivated to avoid being seen unfavorably, people with high self-esteem are motivated to
make positive impressions to maintain self-esteem (Baumeister, 1998; Tice, 1992).
Furthermore, conﬁdence in a particular domain should increase one’s ability to perform
well. Given that people with high self-esteem tend to have more conﬁdence in their self-
presentational abilities, higher self-esteem in domains related to impression management
should inﬂuence one’s ability to make a positive impression, especially if that impression
is afﬁrming and positive (Baumeister, 1998; Schlenker, Weigold, & Hallarn, 1990).
Thus, because people with high self-esteem tend to have more experience in using
impression management strategies in general, using stigma management strategies that
reinforce positive aspects of the self (i.e., using afﬁrming strategies) should be less
cognitively taxing for people who have higher self-esteem. The current study explored
the effects of these self-presentational factors and of self-esteem on managing a newly-
acquired stigma.
Aﬂective Responses to Being Stigmatized

Stigmatized individuals oﬁen face the negative affective responses of others
(Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Dovidio, Kawakami & Gaertner, 2000). However, these
stigmatized individuals may also experience negative affect toward their own
stigrnatizing state (Frable, 1993). This negative affect should be especially prevalent
among individuals who are learning to cope with a newly-acquired stigma which may
also inﬂuence their impression of others in a social interaction (Santuzzi & Ruscher,
2002). Visibility should also play an important role in the affect that the newly-

stigrnatized person feels because of the likelihood that they will be negatively judged by

14

others when the stigma is visible. The current study explored affective responses of
people with a newly-acquired stigma and whether the level of negative affect varied as a
function of stigma management strategy and stigma visibility.

Overview

The study consisted of a 2 (Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility: Visible,
Non-visible) between-subj ects design. Participants, all of whom were non-stigmatized
individuals, were assigned to play the role of a stigmatized person and were instructed to
present themselves using one of two strategies. The role-playing aspect of this study was
adapted from previous research exploring the underlying processes of stigrnatization by
using non-stigmatized individuals and giving them a negative attribute (e.g., Kleck &
Strenta, 1980; Santuzzi & Ruscher, 2002; Smart & Wegner, 1999).

Participants completed a series of pre-experiment questionnaires that assessed
individual difference factors that may inﬂuence their ability to make a positive
impression in the subsequent interaction task. One to two weeks later, participants took
part in the laboratory section of the experiment that consisted of a computer-mediated
interaction with another participant (who was actually a confederate). During the
interaction, participants played the role of a person with a physical disability (i.e.,
participants were instructed to sit in a wheelchair). Before engaging in the interaction
task, participants read a series of scenarios about stigmatized individuals engaging in
either afﬁrming or negating stigma management techniques. These scenarios served to
inform participants of various stigma management techniques to assist them during the
interaction. In addition, participants believed they were either visible or non-visible to

the confederate. One dependent measure assessed the level of available cognitive

15

resources during the interaction by asking participants to recall speciﬁc details about the
interaction and the confederate. The other dependent measures assessed the level of
cognitive depletion aﬁer the interview by having participants complete a difﬁcult
cognitive task. In addition to the main dependent measures, participants completed post-
experiment measures to assess their mood and evaluations of the interview.

Research questions and hypotheses:

1. Do some stigma management techniques require less cognitive resources than others?

0 Hypothesis 1: In this context of a newly acquired stigma (i.e., experience is low),
negating stigma management techniques should require less cognitive resources
than afﬁrming stigma management techniques.

2. Is the level of cognitive resources required different when the stigma is visible?

0 Hypothesis 2: In this context of a newly acquired stigma, managing a visible
stigma should require greater cognitive resources than managing a non-visible
stigma.

3. Do the type of stigma management strategy and visibility of the stigma interact to
inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources required?

0 Hypothesis 3: In this context of a newly acquired stigma, negating strategies
should require less cognitive resources when the stigma is non-visible compared
to visible; afﬁrming strategies should require less cognitive resources when the
stigma is visible compared to non-visible.

Exploratory research questions:
4. Do individual difference factors moderate the effects of visibility and strategy on the

level of cognitive resources required?

16

5. What are the affective responses to using these stigma management strategies when
individuals are visible versus non-visible?
Method

Participants

One hundred and twenty-one Caucasian psychology students who did not possess
a major stigma were invited to participate in a study on interpersonal communication in
exchange for course credit.1 Data from 34 participants were omitted from the ﬁnal
analyses for the following reasons: 4 participants expressed high levels of suspicion on
the open-ended questionnaire items and during the oral debrieﬁng; 30 participants failed
on the manipulation check items by either stating that they utilized a strategy different
than the one they were assigned (7) or failed to correctly state whether they were visible
or non-visible to their interaction partner (23).2 Thus, 87 participants were used in the
ﬁnal analyses consisting of 63 women (72.4%) and 24 men (27.6%) with a mean age of
19.15 years (SD=1.70).
Measures

Demographics. A demographic questionnaire assessed participant’s age, sex,
race, and ACT total scores (M = 24.87, SD = 2.81). This measure also assessed whether
participants had a major stigma. The complete demographics questionnaire is displayed

in Appendix A.

 

1 Given that Study 1 was exploring the use of stigma management strategies among individuals who had a
“newly-acquired” stigma, participants who possessed a major stigma, as deﬁned by current social
psychological literature, were omitted from the analyses. Participants omitted because of stigma included
sexual orientation (1 gay man), racial minority (3 African American, 1 Asian American, 3 multi-racial),
physical disability or deformity (2), and religious minority (3 Jewish).

2 Participants who failed the visibility manipulation check primarily stated that they were visible to their
interaction partner, when in fact they were in the non-visible condition.

17

Public Self-consciousness. The extent that participants are aware of themselves as
a social object was assessed by the public self-consciousness subscale of the Fenigstein et
a1. (1975) Self-Consciousness scale (5-items, e.g., I’m concerned about the way I present
myself; a = .69; see Appendix B).3 Participants rated how much they agreed that each
item was true for them in general on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5
(strongly agree). These responses were reverse-scored when appropriate and means were
calculated such that greater scores reﬂect greater public self-consciousness.

Social Anxiety. The extent to which participants feel discomfort in the presence
of others was assessed by the social anxiety subscale of the Fenigstein et a1. (1975) Self-
Consciousness scale (6-items, e.g., I have trouble working when someone is watching
me; a = .77; see Appendix B). Participants rated how much they agreed that each item
was true for them in general on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 5 (strongly
agree). These responses were reverse-scored when appropriate and means were
calculated such that greater scores reﬂect greater social anxiety.

Self-presentational Concern. Participants also completed the Concern subscale of
the Self-Presentation Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984; 5-items; e.g., I am concerned about
the way I present myself; a = .74; see Appendix C) to assess their level of concern with
the way they present themselves to others. Participants rated how much they agreed with
each item on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all like me) to 5 (very much like me). Means
were calculated such that greater scores reﬂect greater concern about one’s self-
presentation.

Self-esteem. Participants completed a modiﬁed version of the State Self-Esteem

Scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991; see Appendix D) to measure chronic, domain speciﬁc

 

3 Two items from the public self-consciousness subscale were omitted due to poor inter-item correlations.

18

types of self-esteem. The State Self-Esteem Scale is a self-report measure that consists of
three subscales assessing participants’ level of performance self-esteem (7-items; e. g., I
feel like I generally do not do well; 0. = .76), social self-esteem (7-items; e. g., I am
worried about looking foolish most of the time; a = .78), and appearance self-esteem (6-
items; e.g., I feel good about myself in general; a = .82). Participants rated how much
they agree that each item is true for them in general on a scale ranging from 1 (strongly
disagree) to 5 (strongly agree). For each of the self-esteem subscales, responses were
reverse-scored when appropriate and means were calculated separately such that greater
scores reﬂect greater levels of performance, social, and appearance self-esteem.

Cognitive resources during interaction. During the interview portion of the
experiment, participants were given information about their partner (actually a
confederate of the experimenter) and were able to view him or her via a webcam. A
measure of cognitive resources (CRM) assessed whether participants recalled various
details about the experimental interaction and their interaction partner. Sixteen questions
included visual information about their partner (e.g., What color was the shirt that your
interaction partner was wearing?), visual information about the environmental
surroundings (e.g., What color was the wall behind your interaction partner on the
webcam?; What was the screen name of your interaction partner?), as well as verbal
(typed) information from the interaction partner (e. g., What do they like to eat?; What
was the name of their pet?; What sport did they play in high school?) This measure
served as the ﬁrst main dependent variable for Study 1.

Cognitive depletion due to interaction. In addition, participants completed a

measure to assess the extent to which the interaction was cognitively taxing and thus

19

limited the amount of resources available after the interaction was completed (see
Appendix E). Following research conducted by Baumeister, Twenge, and Nuss (2002),
participants were given 6 minutes to complete a series of items from the General Mental
Abilities Test (J anda, 1996). This multiple-choice intelligence test measures verbal
skills, mathematical ability, and general knowledge and served as a measure of cognitive
depletion (CDM). Participants were instructed that they had 6 minutes to correctly
answer as many questions as possible. Each item also had a ‘skip’ option that
participants were instructed to use if they wished to skip over items that they were unable
to answer. The number of questions correctly answered (CDM-correct), as well as the
total number of questions attempted by the participants (correct and incorrect; CDM-
attempted), were calculated such that greater values reﬂect less cognitive depletion. In
addition, the number of items skipped (CDM-skipped) was calculated such that greater
values reﬂect greater cognitive depletion. These three scores served as the second set of
main dependent variables for Study 1.4

Positive and Negative Aﬂect. Participants were given the Positive And Negative
Affect Scale (PANAS, Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988; see Appendix F) to assess how
they felt after the interview portion of the experiment. Participants rated the extent to
which 10 positive moods (e. g., excited) and 10 negative moods (e.g., upset) were true for
them “at this moment” on a scale ranging ﬁ'om 1 (very slightly or not at all) to 5
(extremely). Means for each subscale were calculated such that larger scores reﬂect

greater levels of positive (a = .87) or negative (a = .83) affect.

 

4 . .
A ratro of correct responses to attempted responses was also calculated. However, thrs measure

demonstrated similar results as the other calculated cognitive depletion measures, so will not be discussed
further.

20

Ratings of interview task. Participants also rated their experiences in the
interview portion of the experiment. Participants responded to three items that assessed
their level of eﬂ'ectiveness of making a positive impression (i.e., How effective were you
in your ability to make a positive impression on your partner?; How much do you think
your interaction partner likes you?; How well do you think you did on the task?; a = .79),
two items assessing the diﬂiculty of the task (i.e., How difﬁcult was the interview task?;
How difﬁcult to perform was the strategy that you were given to use during the interview
task?; a = .74), and enjoyment of the task (How much did you enjoy the interaction
task?) Participants rated each item on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5
(extremely). For each of the subscales, responses were summed such that greater scores
reﬂected greater endorsement.

Ratings of self and interview partner. Participants also rated themselves and their
interview partner after the interview portion of the experiment. Participants responded to
an item that assessed how much they liked themselves (How much do you like yourself
after the interaction?) and an item that assessed how much they liked their interaction
partner (How much do you like your interaction partner?) Participants rated each item
on a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 5 (extremely). For each of the items, responses
were summed separately such that greater scores reﬂected greater endorsement.

Manipulation check. One manipulation check item assessed whether participants
believed that they were visible to their interaction partner (i.e., Could your interaction
partner see you during the interview portion of the experiment?) In addition, participants

were asked to brieﬂy describe the type of strategy that they were instructed to use (i.e.,

21

Please brieﬂy describe the type of strategy were you asked to use when interacting with
your interview partner.)
Procedure

Pre-experimental procedure. Participants signed up on-line through the
psychology department participation website to take part in a study on interpersonal
communication. When they signed up, participants were asked to complete the
demographic questionnaire, as well as other measures that may inﬂuence their ability to
perform well on the interview task (i.e., hinder or facilitate their ability to manage the
impression they make on others). These questionnaires included the measures of public
self-consciousness, social anxiety, self-presentational concern, and self-esteem.

Experimental procedure. One to two weeks following the completion of the on-
line pre-experiment measures, participants completed the laboratory portion of the
experiment. Up to three individuals of the same sex participated in each session.
Participants were assigned to wait at different locations and were escorted separately into
one of three private computer work spaces in the lab by a male or female research
assistants Before beginning the experiment, participants gave their informed consent.
Participants were then given instructions via computer that stated they would be
completing a series of tasks assessing factors that inﬂuence interpersonal communication.

Strategy familiarity task Given that participants in Study 1 were Caucasian
without a major stigma, they ﬁrst completed a task that was designed to familiarize them
with the impression management strategies used by stigmatized individuals. Participants

read scenarios about three different physically-challenged people using stigma

 

5 Research sessions were conducted by four female and one male research assistant. Results were not
qualiﬁed by the research assistant, or by gender of participant.

22

management strategies that were consistent with the condition to which they would be
assigned (i.e., afﬁrming or negating). These scenarios were adapted from qualitative
studies on stigmatized individuals (e. g., Cain, 1991). These scenarios are displayed in
Appendix G. Participants were instructed to read each story and respond to a few
questions regarding the person in the story because the content of the story would be
important to the second part of the study (e. g., How does the person in the story deal with
their difﬁcult situation?)

Computer-mediated interaction task After answering the questions for the last
story, participants were given instructions for the second task. They were informed that
this task involved a chat-room interaction where they would be interviewed in a question-
and-answer format by another participant. Participants were instructed that their goal
during the interaction was to make a positive impression on their partner while taking on
the role of a person who is physically disabled and has to use a wheelchair. Participants
were then instructed to sit in a wheelchair and place a blanket over their legs.
Participants were instructed to pretend that they had been in the wheelchair for many
years and were unable to use their legs at all. Participants were also informed that their
interaction partner was unaware of these instructions and that it was important to the
study that they not know that the participant had been instructed to sit in the wheelchair.
Participants then completed a short task to help them prepare for their role as a person in
a wheelchair. Participants were instructed to type for three minutes about what it would
be like to be a person who is physically disabled and is wheelchair bound. At the end of
three minutes, the computer screen advanced to display information regarding the stigma

management strategy manipulation.

23

Stigma management manipulation. Participants were instructed to present
themselves to their interaction partner using one of two strategies. These strategies were
consistent with the scenarios that the participants had previously read. Participants were
given information about the strategy, but were allowed to enact the strategy however they
felt was appropriate.

Participants in the negate condition were instructed to avoid any discussion of the
wheelchair. They were instructed to hide the fact that they are in a wheelchair, if
possible, by being careful not to disclose it to their interaction partner, or redirect the
conversation to another topic and avoid discussing topics that refer to it.

Participants in the aﬂirm condition were instructed to discuss the fact that they are
in a wheelchair. They were instructed to openly express the fact that they are in a
wheelchair, discuss it, and emphasize positive qualities about it.

Visibility manipulation. Whether the participants were visible or not to their
interaction partner was manipulated. Across all conditions, participants saw their
interaction “partner” (who was actually a confederate) over a computer webcam.
However, whether the actual participant believed that he or she was visible to the
confederate was manipulated through the use of a webcarn connected to the participant’s
computer.

Participants in the visible condition were informed that they could be seen by their
interaction partners. These participants were seated in front of a webcarn that they
believed was being transmitted to their partner’s computer. They were led to believe that
the wheelchair was visible to the other “participant.” Participants in the visible condition

were given the following information:

24

We would like to see how visibility inﬂuences the impressions that people make on
others, so you and your interaction partner will have webcams hooked up to your
computer, so each of you will be visible to each other over the webcam. You
should see a webcam connected to your computer which will project an image of

you sitting in the wheelchair to your interaction partner.

Participants in the non-visible condition did not have a webcam connected to their
computer, and were led to believe that they were not visible to their interaction partner.

Participants in the non-visible condition were given the following information:

We would like to see how visibility inﬂuences the impressions that people make on
others, so there will be a webcam hooked up to the computer of your interaction
partner, so they will be visible to you over the webcam. There is a webcam
connected to their computer that will project an image of them sitting at their
computer. However, your interaction partner will not have any visual

information about you.

When the participant completed reading the visibility information, the
experimenter entered the computer workspace and connected the participant’s computer
to the chatroom and webcam image of the confederate sitting at a computer workstation.
The webcam image of the confederate was approximately 6in x 6in, and placed in the

upper left-hand comer of the participant’s computer screen. The confederate was the

25

same sex as the participant. Three female and two male confederates were used in the
experiment.6

A chatroom textbox, approximately three inches in height, appeared in the center
of the right-hand side of the screen. In the visible condition, the webcam image of the
participant appeared in a 2m x 2in screen in the lower left-hand comer of their screen.
Before beginning the interaction, all participants were reminded of their task during the
interaction and told that if they make a positive impression on their interaction partner
they would be entered into a lottery to win $100.

The confederate was trained to type a series of scripted questions and responses to
the participant. It was expected that using a confederate instead of a computer program
would make the procedure more believable for the participant, because the confederate
could address any unexpected spontaneous responses by participants (e. g., are you really
a participant?) and alleviate any suspicions that the participant may have. The questions
typed in by the confederate included a broad range of topics (e. g., What is your major?)
as well as speciﬁc items that address that fact that the participant is in a wheelchair (e.g.,
Do you play any sports?; Have you ever been treated unfairly or discriminated against?)
In addition, the questions were designed to evoke responses of varying length and detail.
For example, some questions required short responses to answer (e.g., How old are you?)
and others required more elaboration (e. g., Describe a time when you accomplished
something you are very proud of.) The chatrooms were set up such that participants
were instructed by the experimenter to type a greeting (e.g., Hello, I am ready to begin)

into the chatroom text box to let the other “participant” know that they were ready.

 

6 The confederate did not qualify any of the results presented and thus will not be discussed further.

26

The chatroom interactions lasted an average of 34.34 (SD = 9.48) minutes7 and,
after ﬁnishing the interaction, participants completed a post-interaction questionnaire that
included the main dependent measures. Participants completed the measure of cognitive
depletion immediately after the interaction, followed by the measure of cognitive
resources assessing what they remembered about the interaction. These dependent
measures were given via computer and were followed by the affective measures, ratings
of self and interaction partner items, and the manipulation check items. Participants then
were given the suspicion questions via computer (e. g., Did you ﬁnd anything odd or
confusing about this experiment? What do you think the purpose of this experiment is?)
Participants were further probed for suspicion verbally by the research assistant and then
fully debriefed. All participants received course credit and were entered into a lottery to
win $100.

Results
Manipulation Check and Suspicion

Responses on the visibility and strategy manipulation check items were visually
inspected to verify that they were consistent with the participant’s assigned experimental
condition. In addition, responses to the written and verbal suspicion items, as well as the
purpose of the study item were visually inspected for high levels of suspicion regarding
the experimental design or the confederate. As stated in the Participant section above,
participants who did not respond correctly to the manipulation check items or who
expressed suspicion that the interaction was real were omitted from the subsequent

analyses.

 

7 Chat time did not differ as a function of either the strategy manipulation, visibility manipulation, or their
interaction. Furthermore, controlling for chat time did not alter any of the results presented.

27

Furthermore, the typed responses from all participants were coded for examples
of negation and afﬁrmation strategies. Speciﬁcally, responses to eight of the
interviewer’s scripted questions were coded. These questions were “Brieﬂy describe
yourself as you think a stranger would, Describe a time when you accomplished
something you are very proud of., Describe a time when you feel you were unfairly
criticized for your performance on a task, Do you play any sports?, Is there anything you
used to be able to do that you are unable to do now?, What is the ﬁrst thing that people
notice about you when people meet you for the ﬁrst time?, Do you think attitudes toward
stereotyped groups have changed over the years?, Have you ever been treated unfairly or
discriminated against?” Each response was coded as an example of afﬁrmation if the
participant responded in a way that acknowledged some value with being in a wheelchair
(e.g., “I can’t think of one person that. . .I wasn’t able to change the way they
thought. . .about people in a wheelchair”; “I like to think that since I became limited
physically, I became more mentally strong”; “because of the wheelchair. . .people get to
know me for who I am”; “I got to be involved in the Special Olympics” , attempted to
educate or inform their interaction partner about what it is like to be in a wheelchair (e. g.,
“people treat disabled people differently than they do able-bodied people”; “it is kind of
hard to date when you are in a wheelchair”; “I only wish that people would be more open
in discussing my disability with me”), or acknowledged that he or she was in a
wheelchair (e.g., “the ﬁrst thing people notice is the wheelchair”; “I’m in a wheelchair”).
In addition, each time that the participant acknowledged that they were in a wheelchair in
an afﬁrming way was calculated (e. g., in their opening comments stating they were in a

wheelchair).

28

The response was coded as an example of negation if the participant minimized
the relevance of being in a wheelchair (e. g., “being in a wheelchair is only one attribute
of me”; “hopefully people don’t notice anything physical but something about my
personality”), stated something that obviously would not be accurate for a person that
they had been assigned to play (e. g., “I ﬁgure skate”; “I can still do now pretty much
everything that I did in the past”; “I am not discriminated against because I am middle-
class and White”), responded in a way that avoided the topic of being in a wheelchair
(e. g., “Getting into MSU was a major accomplishment”; “I know a girl on the tennis team
who. . .”; “I think stereotypes toward women and African Americans have changed. . .”),
attempted to change the topic (e.g., “How about you, what sports do you play?”; “Do you
live in the dorms or off-campus?”; “You are only taking two classes?”), or gave a short
response or completely ignored the question (e.g., “I don’t think I have ever felt like
that”; “No not really”; “I don’t know”; “I have to tell you about a comedian I saw last
night. . .”). In addition, each time that the participant tried to take the focus off of
themselves was calculated (e. g., “So what are you going to be for Halloween?”).
Examples of afﬁrmation and negation were summed separately such that each participant
had an afﬁrmation score and a negation score.

Independent samples t-tests were conducted using the afﬁrmation and negation
scores as the dependent variables to assure that the assigned strategy was used more often
during the interaction. Results demonstrated that participants in the Negation condition
used signiﬁcantly more negating techniques (M = 7.89, SD = 2.02) than participants in

the Afﬁrrnation condition (M = 4.33, SD = 2.16), t(85) = 7.89, p < .01, and participants in

29

the Afﬁrmation condition used more afﬁrming techniques (M = 5.28, SD = 2.34) than
participants in the Negation condition (M = 0.43, SD = 0.98), t(85) = -12.79, p < .01.8

Zero-order correlations were conducted to explore the relations among the
dependent measures. The post experimental performance measures were signiﬁcantly
correlated (see Table 1). First, all of the cognitive depletion measures were related to
each other in the expected direction. Furthermore, the number of items correct on the
cognitive depletion measure was positively related to the cognitive resources measure,
indicating that participants who had greater cognitive resources during the interaction
also had greater resources after the interaction as well.
Main Hypothesis Tests

A series of 2 (Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility: Non-Visible, Visible)
between-subj ects ANOVAs were conducted to test the current hypotheses using the
cognitive resources score and the three cognitive depletion scores as dependent measures.
Given that participants’ ACT scores were strongly correlated with the total number of

correct responses on the cognitive depletion measure (r = .43, p < .01), each of the

 

8 Given that responses were coded as examples of negation or afﬁrmation regardless of experimental
condition, some participants in the negate condition gave afﬁrming responses and some participants in the
aﬂ'rrm condition gave negating responses. For example, when visible, participants in the negate condition
may have commented that they were in a wheelchair when describing themselves (presurrrably because
they thought their interaction partner already knew this information), and, when responding to the
interviewer’s questions, participants in the afﬁrm condition did not always discuss their disability.
However, the overall response patterns for all of the participants in Study 1 were consistent with their
assigned strategy condition. The mean number of negating strategy responses by experimental conditions
are as follows: Negate Visible — M = 7.70, SD = 1.29; Negate Non-visible - M = 8.09, SD = 2.57; Afﬁrm
Visible — M = 4.72, SD = 1.87; Afﬁrrn Non-visible - M = 4.00, SD = 2.37. The mean number of afﬁrming
strategy responses by experimental conditions are as follows: Negate Visible — M = 0.57, SD = 1.04;
Negate Non-visible — M = 0.30, SD = 0.93; Afﬁrm Visible - M = 5.17, SD = 2.31; Affirm Non-visible — M
= 5.36, SD = 2.42.

30

analyses in which the cognitive depletion measures served as outcomes included ACT

scores as a covariate.9 ‘0 Means for these analyses are displayed in Table 2.

Table 1.

Zero-order correlations of post-interaction cognitive measures for Study 1.

 

Measures M SD 1 2 3
l) CDM-correct 16.40 5.41

2) CDM-skipped 8.21 5.39 -.32**

3) CDM-attempted 28.00 6.69 .65M -.52**

4) Cognitive Resources Measure 11.25 1.91 .24* -.11 .19t

 

Note: N = 87; CDM=Cognitive Depletion Measure. Tp < .10, *p < .05, "p < .01.

 

9 As would be expected, ACT scores did not vary as a function of experimental conditions.

10 One participant did not report an ACT score and thus could not be included in these speciﬁc analyses.

31

Table 2.
Means and standard deviations for the cognitive depletion measures and cognitive
resource measure for Study 1.
Strategy Condition
Afﬁrm Negate
Mean SD Mean SD

Measure Visibility Condition

 

CDM-correct* Visible 15.31 6.07 14.77 5.36

Non-visible 18.17 4.65 17.07 5.55

CDM-attempted* Visible 26.15 6.57 26.43 6.23

Non-visible 31.21 6.82 27.63 6.42

CDM-skipped* Visible 10.02 4.47 9.47 6.27

Non-visible 7.04 5.47 6.89 4.58

Cognitive Resources Measure Visible 10.61 2.45 11.25 1.75

Non-visible 11.32 1.55 11.70 1.89

 

Note: Afﬁrm Visible n = 18; Afﬁrm Non-visible n = 22; Negate Visible n = 24; Negate
Non-visible n = 23; CDM=Cognitive Depletion Measure. *Reported means controlling

for ACT scores.

32

Hypothesis 1: Hypothesis 1 stated that in this newly acquired stigma context,
using a negating strategy would be easier than using an afﬁrming strategy. Thus, support
for Hypothesis 1 would be demonstrated by a signiﬁcant main effect for strategy for each
of the ANOVAs. Results indicated no signiﬁcant main effects for strategy on any of the
dependent measures [CRM, F(1,83) = 1.52, MSE = 3.64, p = .22; CDM-correct, F(1,81)
= 0.60, MSE = 23.32, p = .44; CDM-skipped, F(1,81) = 0.09, MSE = 28.48, p = .76;
CDM-attempted, F(1,81) = 1.35, MSE = 42.61, p = .25]. Thus, Hypothesis 1 was not
supported in the current study.ll

Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 2 stated that for these individuals with newly acquired
stigmas, having a visible stigma would require greater cognitive resources than having a
non-visible stigma. Support for Hypothesis 2 would be demonstrated by a signiﬁcant
main effect for visibility, showing that participants in the visible condition had fewer
cognitive resources compared to participants in the non-visible condition. Results
demonstrated that, whereas no signiﬁcant main effect for visibility was found for the
cognitive resources measure (F (1,83) = 1.96, MSE = 3.64, p = .17), some support was
found with the cognitive depletion measures. On the cognitive depletion measure,
compared to participants in the visible condition, participants in the non-visible condition
answered signiﬁcantly more items correctly (M = 15.04, SD = 5 .60; M = 17.62, SD =
5.08, respectively; F (1,81) = 6.00, MSE = 23.32, p < .05), skipped signiﬁcantly fewer
items (M = 9.75, SD = 5.54; M = 6.97, SD = 4.97, respectively; F(1,81) = 5.71, MSE =

28.48, p < .05), and attempted signiﬁcantly more items (M = 26.29.15, SD = 6.29; M =

 

H Subsequent analyses demonstrated that stigma management substrategies (e. g., using negation by
avoidance compared to negation by lying) did not inﬂuence the use of cognitive resources differently. In
addition, the use of strategies or substrategies did not vary as a function of visibility. Given these results,
these analyses were not conducted for Study 2.

33

29.42, SD = 6.78, respectively; F(1,81) = 4.83, MSE = 42.61, p < .05). Thus, partial
support was found for Hypothesis 2 demonstrating that, it was easier (i.e., less
cognitively-taxing) to perform these impression management techniques when one’s
stigrnatizing attribute was non-visible compared to visible.

Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis 3 proposed that Hypotheses 1 and 2 would be qualiﬁed
by a signiﬁcant strategy by visibility interaction. Hypothesis 3 predicted that participants
in the negating condition would demonstrate greater cognitive resources in the non-
visible compared to visible condition, however participants in the afﬁrming condition
would demonstrate greater cognitive resources in the visible compared to non-visible
condition. Hypothesis 3 was not supported in the current study. No strategy by visibility
interaction was found for the cognitive resource measure, F (1,83) = 0.10, MSE = 3.64, p
= .75. In addition, the cognitive depletion main effects for visibility were not qualiﬁed by
a signiﬁcant interaction for number of correct responses, F(1,81) = 0.07, MSE = 23.32, p
= .79, the number of items skipped, F (1,81) = 0.03, MSE = 28.48, p = .87, or the number
of items attempted, F(1,81) = 1.85, MSE = 42.61, p = .18.

Individual Difference Factors

The ﬁrst exploratory research question addressed whether individual factors assist
in the enactment of stigma management strategies and so reduce the amount of cognitive
resources required during stigma management. Zero-order correlations were conducted
to explore the relations among the pre-experiment individual difference variables (Table
3), and among the individual difference variables and performance outcomes (Table 4).

As displayed in Table 3, measures tapping into self-presentational factors (i.e., public

34

self-consciousness, social anxiety, self-presentational concern) correlated positively.

These factors were generally negatively related to the measures of self-esteem.

Table 3.

Zero-order correlations of individual difference measures for Study 1.

 

Measures M SD 1 2 3 4 5

1) Public Self-Consciousness 3.32 0.44

2) Social Anxiety 2.68 0.74 .43"

3) Self-Presentation Concern 3.37 0.67 .64" .25*

4) Performance Self-Esteem 3.79 0.54 -.10 -.37** -.16

5) Social Self-Esteem 3.31 0.65 -.54** -.49** -.56** .40"

6) Appearance Self-Esteem 3.53 0.61 -.16 -.32** -.191 .49" .45**

 

Note: N= 87; Tp < .10, *p < .05, **p < .01.

The correlations between these individual difference variables and the
performance outcomes are displayed in Table 4. Participants who reported greater public
self-consciousness attempted more items on the cognitive depletion measure; participants
who reported greater social anxiety skipped more items on this measure. Furthermore,
self-esteem was related to outcomes on the cognitive depletion measure such that
participants who reported greater performance self-esteem answered signiﬁcantly more
items correct, and those who reported greater performance, social, and appearance self-

esteem skipped signiﬁcantly fewer items.

35

Table 4.

Zero-order correlations of individual difference measures and performance variables for

 

Study 1.

Measures CDM-correct CDM-skipped CDM-attempted CRM
1) Public Self-Consciousness .11 .16 .21* .07
2) Social Anxiety .09 .23* -.03 .02
3) Self-Presentation Concern -.10 .17 .04 .03
4) Performance Self-Esteem .23* -.23* .07 .08
5) Social Self-Esteem .00 -.26* .03 -.03
6) Appearance Self-Esteem .03 -.36** .04 .02

 

Note: N = 87; CDM=Cognitive Depletion Measure; CRM=Cognitive Resources Measure.

Tp < .10, I"p < .05, “p < .01.

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore whether the individual
difference factors moderate the effects of the strategy and visibility conditions. That is,
the inﬂuence of these individual difference factors may be exacerbated under speciﬁc
conditions. For example, people who are chronically aware of themselves as social
objects (i.e., high in public self-consciousness) may have more experience with
emphasizing the positive qualities they possess. For these individuals, engaging in
afﬁrming strategies speciﬁcally may require less cognitive resources. Dummy coding
was performed on the strategy (0=negate and 1=afﬁrm) and visibility (0=non—visible and
1=visible) variables and scores on the individual difference factors were mean-centered

(Aiken & West, 1991). Each multiple regression was a factorial combination with all

36

main effects, two- and three-way interactions entered for each of the dependent measures
(i.e., the three measures of cognitive depletion and the cognitive resource measure). For
the three measures of cognitive depletion, ACT scores were entered as a control. For
each statistically signiﬁcant interaction involving the individual difference variable,

simple slope analyses were conducted.

Table 5.
Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, public self-
consciousness, impression management strategies and visibility experimental

manipulations, and their interactions among participants in Study 1.

 

C_0gnitive Depletion Correct Cognitive Depletion Skipped

 

B [3 SE B [3 SE
ACT Score .75 .39” .19 -.03 -.02 .20
Public Self-Consciousness -.31 -.24 2.32 3.81 .31 2.47
Impression Strategy 1.39 .13 1.43 -.25 -.02 1.52
Visibility Condition -2.47 -.23 1.38 2.22 .21 1.47
Strategy x Visibility -.83 -.06 2.07 1.30 .10 2.20
Strategy x Public SC 7.76 .42* 3.44 -9.56 -.52* 3.65
Visibility x Public SC 3.88 .22 3.25 3.26 .18 3.45
Strategy x Visibility x Public -3.61 -.13 4.81 2.13 .08 5.11

 

Note: N = 86; Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-

visible = 0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, “p < .01.

37

Self-presentational factors. The statistically signiﬁcant results for public self-
consciousness are displayed in Table 5. As displayed in panel 1, ACT scores
signiﬁcantly predicted the number of items that participants correctly answered on the
cognitive depletion measure. As would be expected, participants with higher ACT scores
answered more items correctly.12 Furthermore, the strategy manipulation by public self-
consciousness interaction was also statistically signiﬁcant. Simple slope analyses
demonstrated that whereas public self-consciousness did not inﬂuence the number of
items correctly answered on the cognitive depletion measure in the negate condition, B =
-.97, ,6 = -.08, SE = 1.52, p = .53, for participants in the afﬁrm condition, as public self-
consciousness increased, so did their performance on the cognitive depletion measure
after the interaction task, B = 5.26, B = .43, SE = 1.90, p < .01, indicating less cognitive
depletion.

Similar results were found for public self-consciousness for the number of items
skipped on the cognitive depletion measure, displayed in Table 5 panel 2. The strategy
manipulation by public self-consciousness interaction was statistically signiﬁcant.
Simple slope analyses demonstrated that in the negate condition, as public self-
consciousness increased, participants skipped more items, B = 5.47, B = .42, SE = 1.75, p
< .01, indicating greater cognitive depletion. However, in the afﬁrm condition, as public
self-consciousness increased, participants skipped marginally fewer of the items, B = -
3.35, ,8 = -.28, SE = 1.96, p < .10, indicating less cognitive depletion.

No statistically signiﬁcant interactions involving public self-consciousness were

found for the number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion measure or on the

 

'2 Given that ACT scores were always entered in Step 1, this result is similar across all of the following
multiple regressions and thus will not be discussed further.

38

cognitive resources measure. However, the statistically signiﬁcant results demonstrate
that public self-consciousness reduced the level of cognitive resources required in the
afﬁrm condition, but increased the level of cognitive resources in the negate condition.
No statistically signiﬁcant interactions involving social anxiety or self-
presentational concern were found on any of the cognitive depletion measures (i.e.,
CDM-correct, CDM-skipped, CDM-attempted) or on the cognitive resources measure.
Self-esteem factors. Multiple regression results with statistically signiﬁcant
interactions demonstrating the inﬂuence of participants’ performance self-esteem on post-
interaction cognitive task performance are displayed in Table 6. For the cognitive
resources measure, the visibility by performance self-esteem interaction was statistically
signiﬁcant. Simple slope analyses demonstrated that whereas performance self-esteem
did not signiﬁcantly inﬂuence performance on the cognitive resource measure for
participants in the visible condition, B = -.91, ﬂ = -.22, SE = .63, p = .16, for participants
in the non-visible condition, as performance self-esteem increased, so did their ability to
pay attention and recall details of their interaction, B = 1.10, B = .37, SE = .42, p < .05.
No statistically signiﬁcant interactions for performance self-esteem were found on any of
the cognitive depletion measures (i.e., CDM-correct, CDM-skipped, CDM-attempted).
The statistically signiﬁcant results suggest, contrary to expectations, that performance
self-esteem assisted participants in the non-visible condition by allowing them to

concentrate more on the interaction.

39

Table 6.
Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, performance self-
esteem, impression management strategies and visibility experimental manipulations, and

their interactions among participants in Study 1.

 

Cognitive Resources Measure

B /3 SE
Performance Self-Esteem 1.30 .37 .77
Impression Strategy -.11 -.03 .57
Visibility Condition -.33 -.09 .56
Strategy x Visibility -.45 -.10 .82
Strategy x Performance SE -.38 -.08 1.01
Visibility x Performance SE -2.71 -.50* 1.11
Strategy x Visibility x Performance 1.46 .19 1.53

 

Note: N = 87; Impression Strategy (N egate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-

visible = 0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, **p < .01.

Statistically signiﬁcant results for social self-esteem predicting performance on
the post-interaction tasks are displayed in Table 7. The number of items correct on the
cognitive depletion measure is displayed in panel 1. Social self-esteem interacted with
strategy. Simple slope analyses demonstrated that, for participants in the afﬁrm
condition, as social self-esteem increased, the number of correct responses on the
cognitive depletion measure decreased, B = -3.38, ,8 = -.35, SE = 1.48, p < .05, however,

this relation was not statistically signiﬁcant for participants in the negate condition, B =

40

1.00, B = .13, SE = .92, p = .29. Thus, for participants in the afﬁrm condition, having

greater conﬁdence in social situations actually depleted cognitive resources.

Table 7.
Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, social self-esteem,
impression management strategies and visibility experimental manipulations, and their

interactions among participants in Study 1.

 

___CDM-Correct CDM-Skim W

B ,6 SE B ,6 SE B ,8 SE
ACTScore .87 .45" .18 -.01 -.01 .19 .13 .05 .25
Social Self-Esteem 2.68 .32 1.42 -1.17 -.14 1.54 2.08 .20 2.01
Impression Strategy 1.89 .18 1.42 -.52 -.05 1.54 4.69 35* 2.01
Visibility Condition -2.44 -.23 1.35 1.37 .13 1.47 -1.13 -.09 1.92
StrategyxVisibility -1.73 -.13 2.05 2.28 .17 2.22 -5.42 -.33 2.90
Strategnyocial SE -5.98 -.41* 2.27 4.22 .29 2.46 -6.71 -.38* 3.21
VisibilitnyocialSE -3.32 -.27 1.93 -4.46 -.37* 2.09 -1.77 -.12 2.74

StrategyxVisibilitnyocial .42 .02 3.48 1.13 .06 3.76 1.76 .06 4.92

 

Note: N = 86; CDM = Cognitive Depletion Measure; Impression Strategy (Negate = 0,

Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-visible = 0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, I""‘p < .01.

The results for social self-esteem predicting the number of items skipped on the
cognitive depletion measure are displayed in Table 7, panel 2. The visibility by social
self-esteem interaction was statistically signiﬁcant. Simple slope analyses demonstrated

that, in the visible condition, as social self-esteem increased, the number of items skipped

41

on the cognitive depletion measure signiﬁcantly decreased, B = -4.42, B = -.48, SE =
1.25, p < .01, however, in the non-visible condition, this relation was not statistically
signiﬁcant, B = .49, B = .06, SE = 1.21, p = .69. Social self-esteem assisted participants
in the visible condition depleting less of their cognitive resources during the interaction
task.

Social self-esteem predicting the number of items attempted on the cognitive
depletion measure is displayed in Table 7, panel 3. Again, the impression management
strategy by social self-esteem interaction was statistically signiﬁcant, however, simple
slope analyses demonstrated that neither slope attained even marginal signiﬁcance
(negate: B =1.13,B = .13, SE =1.32,p = .40; afﬁrm: B = -3.01,B = -.24, SE = 2.06,p =
.10). Nonetheless, this pattern of results does reinforce the previous ﬁnding for number
of correct responses on the cognitive depletion measure. That is, in the afﬁrm condition,
as conﬁdence in social situations increased, the task required greater cognitive resources,
leaving less to complete the post-interaction task.

No statistically signiﬁcant interactions involving social self-esteem in predicting
responses on the cognitive resource measure were found. Furthermore, no statistically
signiﬁcant interactions involving appearance self-esteem were found on any of the
cognitive depletion measures (i.e., CDM-correct, CDM-skipped, CDM-attempted) or on
the cognitive resources measure.

Affective Responses to Being Stigmatized

The second exploratory research question focused on the affective responses to

using these various stigma management strategies for people with newly-acquired

stigmas. To address this question, a series of 2 (Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility:

42

Non-visible, Visible) between-subjects AN OVAs were conducted to explore the reactions
of participants after the computer-mediated interaction. Results are displayed in Table 8.
Positive and negative aﬂect. Although participants did not differ after the

interaction in their level of positive affect as a frmction of the impression management
strategy, visibility, or their interaction, a signiﬁcant strategy by visibility interaction did
demonstrate that participants differed in their level of negative affect, F(1,83) = 10.81,
MSE = 25.95, p < .01. Simple effects analyses demonstrated that whereas participants in
the negate-visible condition felt signiﬁcantly more negative affect than participants in the
negate-non—visible condition, t(83) = 2.53, p <.05, the opposite pattern was found in the
afﬁrm condition, with participants in the non-visible condition feeling more negative
affect than participants in the visible condition, t(83) = -2. 14, p <.05. Thus, participants
with a newly-acquired stigma felt worse after an interaction in which they tried to avoid
discussing a visible stigma or after an interaction in which they were asked to say
positive things about a stigma of which their partner may not be aware.

Ratings of interview task Participants did not differ in their reactions toward the
interaction (i.e., task effectiveness, difﬁculty of task, enjoyment of task) as a function of
the impression management strategy or visibility manipulations (see Table 8).

Ratings of self and interview partner. Participants did not differ in how much
they liked themselves after the interaction as a function of the impression management
strategy or visibility manipulations (see Table 8). However, a signiﬁcant strategy by
visibility interaction did demonstrate that participants differed in how much they liked
their interaction partner, F (1,83) = 6.36, MSE = .54, p < .05. Simple effects analyses

demonstrated that whereas participants in the afﬁrm-visible condition liked their

43

Table 8.
Means and standard deviations for the affective reactions measures for Study 1.
Strategy Condition
Afﬁrm Negate
Mean SD Mean SD

Measure Visibility Condition

 

Positive Affect — PANAS Visible 34.39 6.63 31.71 6.36
Non-visible 33.59 6.58 32.57 5.54
Negative Affect — PANAS Visible 14.67 4.09 17.58 6.78
Non-visible 18.14 5.21 13.83 3.33
Effectiveness of Task Visible 10.83 1.25 11.38 1.93
Non-visible 10.68 1.86 1 1.04 2.23
Difﬁculty of Task Visible 4.67 1.75 4.17 2.04
Non-visible 4.77 2.05 4.83 2.10
Enjoyment of Task Visible 3.67 0.91 3.17 1.09

Non-visible 3.45 0.96 3.43 1.04

Likeability of Self after Interaction Visible 3.78 0.65 3.75 0.79
Non-visible 3.82 1.01 3.52 0.85
Likeability of Interaction Partner Visible 3.89 0.58 3.50 0.93

Non-visible 3.50 0.80 3.91 0.51

 

Note: Afﬁrm Visible n = 18; Affirm Non-visible n = 22; Negate Visible n = 24; Negate

Non-visible n = 23.

interaction partner marginally more than participants in the negate-visible condition, t(83)
= 1.69, p <.10, the opposite pattern was found in the non-visible condition, with
participants in the negate condition stating marginally greater liking for their interaction
partner than participants in the afﬁrm condition, t(83) = -1.88, p <.07. Thus, it appears as
if the negative affect felt by participants in the afﬁrm non-visible and negate visible
conditions inﬂuenced their feelings toward their partner.

Discussion

In Study 1, the hypotheses were only partially supported. First, the amount of
cognitive resources necessary to manage a newly-acquired stigma did not differ as a
function of whether participants were using a negating or afﬁrming technique. Thus, it
appears that for people with newly-acquired stigmas both strategies required equal
amounts of cognitive resources. Regardless of the type of strategy used, sitting in a
wheelchair was a new experience for these participants. Furthermore, for them being a
person who is physically challenged would be inconsistent with their self-concept. Given
that simply being in this unique situation should require greater cognitive resources, it
appears that both strategies may have been equally taxing. This would be due to the fact
that both strategies were equally unfamiliar.

However, whether or not the stigrnatizing attribute of being in a wheelchair was
visible to their interaction partner did inﬂuence the amount of cognitive resources
necessary to engage in the interaction task. When the newly-acquired stigma was visible,
participants did not perform as well on the post-interaction cognitive task suggesting that,
for people with a newly-acquired stigma, managing a visible stigma requires greater

cognitive resources than managing a non-visible stigma. When a stigma is visible, it is

45

more salient to both the stigmatized individual and the interaction partner (Frable et al.,
1990). However, when the stigma is not visible, its impact on the social interaction is
greatly reduced (Santuzzi & Ruscher, 2002), and the stigmatized individual does not face
the pressure of being “discredited” and having to deal with the negative reactions of
others (Goffrnan, 1965; Quinn, Kahng, & Crocker, 2004). Therefore, when a stigma is
not visible, it may be less cognitively taxing to simply conceal it (Pontari & Schlenker,
2001).

This would suggest that managing a non-visible stigma using a negating strategy
would be the least cognitively taxing for people with a newly-acquired stigma. However,
no support was found for the proposition that visibility would interact with the type of
strategy utilized. That is, when their stigma was visible, participants demonstrated less
cognitive resources after the interaction task regardless of whether they were expressing
positive things about their stigma (i.e., using afﬁrming techniques) or avoiding its
discussion (i.e., using negating techniques).

The analyses exploring individual difference factors that may facilitate or hinder
the use of these stigma management techniques demonstrated that the inﬂuence of these
factors may depend on the visibility and the management strategy used. Speciﬁcally,
being chronically aware of oneself as a social object seems to reduce the cognitive
resources required when enacting stigma management strategies that are positive, but
increases the level of cognitive resources when using strategies that avoid the stigma.
Those who are aware of themselves in social interactions may monitor the reactions of
their interaction partners to make sure they are making a positive impression (Leary,

1996). Thus, emphasizing positive personal qualities may become automatic for people

46

high in public self-consciousness making it less cognitively taxing to use afﬁrming
stigma management techniques.

However, no statistically signiﬁcant results were found for the measures of social
anxiety or self-presentational concern. Like public self-consciousness, other chronic
thought processes that inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources necessary during a social
interaction should also inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources required to enact these
stigma management strategies. It was expected that these factors would either have
increased the level of cognitive resources required or decreased the level of cognitive
resources. That is, although initially these individual difference factors may be disruptive
to processing information during a social interaction because they use up available
cognitive resources, over time they may become more habitual and thus less disruptive to
the social interaction (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Thus, self-presentational concern and
chronic social anxiety should have decreased the level of cognitive resources required
when engaging in these stigma management strategies. Conversely, these factors may
have increased the level of cognitive resources required because these stigma
management tasks were novel creating greater concern and anxiety (Leary, 1996).
However, neither of these contentions were supported.

Furthermore, self-esteem should offer an individual conﬁdence when performing
a difﬁcult or challenging task, yet the results for self-esteem were mixed and some were
contrary to expectations. Results suggest that performance self-esteem assisted
participants in the easier task condition (i.e., when they were not visible), whereas social
self-esteem assisted participants in the more difﬁcult task when the stigma was visible. It

was suggested that self-esteem should assist in the enactment of these stigma

47

management strategies for people with newly-acquired stigmas because this conﬁdence
gained from high self-esteem may reduce the cognitive resources used up due to concern
over being successful at the task. However, these results suggest that speciﬁc types of
self-esteem may inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources needed depending on whether
the stigma is visible versus not visible. When the stigma is not visible, impression
management may involve creating a desired image that may include a fake identity.
When a stigma is concealable, impression management may involve the speciﬁc task of
“performing” a speciﬁc role, thus, greater conﬁdence in this domain is beneﬁcial. But
when the stigma is visible, impression management is more about creating a positive
social interaction. When managing a visible stigma, greater conﬁdence in one’s social
skills is required due to the increased need to interpret the reactions of others (Goffrnan,
1965). In turn, cognitive resources that may be used up because of the concerns of
managing a visible stigma are not as depleted when one has conﬁdence in social
interactions.

Moreover, having conﬁdence in social interactions actually led to greater
cognitive depletion when using an afﬁrming strategy. A person may have conﬁdence in
a social interaction because they believe that they are liked for who they are. However,
as previously stated, people with newly-acquired stigmas may not see this stigma as part
of their self-concept. Thus, accentuating positive aspects of the newly-acquired stigma
may be seen as deceptive and, when enacting an afﬁrming strategy, they may feel they
are attempting to be liked for something that they are not. Thus, for people who are
conﬁdent in social interactions, concern over this deception may be distracting. This

distraction may use up cognitive resources.

48

In addition, no signiﬁcant interaction effects were found for performance self-
esteem and strategy. Given that the goal of the interaction was more interpersonal than
task-oriented, participants may not have had speciﬁc performance goals when engaging
in the task (or at least these performance goals were more social in nature). Furthermore,
no statistically signiﬁcant results were found for appearance self-esteem for either
visibility or strategy. It may be that people with newly-acquired stigmas may not see
being in a wheelchair as part of their self-concept, thus feeling good about how one looks
may not be applicable to the task. In short, the conﬁdence that is gained from performing
a challenging task well or feeling good about one’s appearance may not have been as
relevant to the interaction as the conﬁdence associated with being liked and respected by
others.

Finally, participants with a newly-acquired stigma displayed more negative affect
after engaging in an interaction where they attempted to avoid discussing a visible stigma
or afﬁrm a non-visible stigma. In turn, this negative affect appeared to inﬂuence their
feelings toward their interaction partner. These results are consistent with other research
demonstrating that people with newly-acquired stigmas report an increase in negative
attributions regarding the trustworthiness of their interaction partner (Santuzzi &
Ruscher, 2002).

As previously stated, although it was hypothesized that engaging in negating
stigma management techniques would be less cognitively-taxing than engaging in
afﬁmring stigma management techniques for people with newly-acquired stigmas, no
signiﬁcant differences in cognitive resources were found as a function of impression

management strategy. In part, this may be because both types of stigma management

49

strategies were unfamiliar to the participants. The atypical experience of managing a
stigma may require equal levels of cognitive resources regardless of the stigma
management strategy employed. However, over time these stigma management
strategies should become more familiar as the stigmatized person gains more experience
with them, making these processes more automatic. Study 2 explored whether
experience would in fact moderate the effects of visibility and stigma management

strategy on the level of cognitive resources required during a social interaction.

50

STUDY 2
Experience with Stigma Management

Coping with a newly-acquired stigma and having experience with using stigma
management strategies in one’s everyday life are almost certainly psychologically
different (Miller & Myers, 1998). Although there are numerous conditions that
differentiate these two groups, including the level of social support, most pertinent to the
current discussion is the level of stigma management skill. People who have dealt with
their stigmatizing attribute for some time (regardless if they are born with it or acquired it
later in life) have had time to develop the skills necessary to compensate for the negative
reactions of others (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Cross & Strauss, 1998; Miller &
Myers, 1998). Over time, they may have been exposed to similar others who may guide
them in the development of strategies that assist in stigma management (Crocker &
Major, 1989; Troiden, 1987). Because people with experience with the stigma may have
gained the skills necessary to perform these stigma management techniques, using them
should become more automatic and thus require less cognitive capacity.

Moreover, the effects of visibility and type of strategy may be different for people
with experience with the stigma, compared to people with newly-acquired stigmas.
People who have dealt with their stigma for some time may have experience with
managing their stigma in a wider range of situations, including situations that may be
difﬁcult for a person with a newly-acquired stigma (such as using afﬁrming strategies
when the stigma may not be visible and using negating strategies to reduce the impact of
a visible stigma). Because of this, visibility should have less of an inﬂuence on cognitive

resources for people with stigma management experience.

51

Stigma Experience-Related Factors — Importance and Awareness

In addition, speciﬁc factors relevant to the stigma may be more pertinent to
people who have more experience with managing the stigma. Similar to the individual
difference factors examined in Study 1, these stigma-related factors should inﬂuence the
level of cognitive resources required to engage in various impression management tasks.
Centrality is the degree to which individuals consider some attribute of the self to be
important to their self-concept (Sellers, Srrrith, Shelton, Rowley & Chavous, 1998).
When an attribute is important, it will have a greater inﬂuence on the behaviors of the
stigmatized individual in a wider range of social interactions (Stryker & Serpe, 1994). If
the stigrnatizing attribute is important, the stigmatized individuals will be more aware of
it more often and in more situations (Sellers et al., 1998; Stryker & Serpe, 1994). Thus,
when a stigmatized attribute is central, the stigmatized individual would have had more
opportunities to develop the skills needed for stigma management (Leary, 1996; Miller &
Myers, 1998). In addition, when an identity is central the stigmatized individual may
have more experience with using afﬁrming stigma management strategies. For example,
research has demonstrated that women in male-dominated science ﬁelds, who feel that
their gender is important to who they are, were more likely to afﬁrm their gender identity
when interacting with their male peers than women for whom gender is not central
(Roberts et al., under review). When the negative attribute is more central, stigmatized
individuals are more likely to be open about it and thus would have more experience
using afﬁrming techniques (Walter & Sirnoni, 1993). However, for those for whom it is

less important, negation techniques may be more widely used because they are less

52

invested in maintaining this aspect of the self (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998; Leary &
Kowalski, 1990).

In addition, if the stigrnatizing attribute is not important then it will be less salient
to the stigmatized individual during social interactions (Sellers et al., 1998). Thus, the
stigmatized individual would be more likely to discount its relevance to the social
interaction. This experience with stigma management strategies due to the stigrnatizing
attribute being important should inﬂuence the amount of cognitive resources necessary in
enacting these various strategies. That is, for people low in centrality, using negation
techniques should be more automatic (i.e., require fewer cognitive resources) than
afﬁrming techniques; however, for people high in centrality, using afﬁrming techniques
should require fewer cognitive resources, compared to using negating techniques.

In addition, some stigmatized people are more aware that others may evaluate
them in terms of the stigrnatizing attribute. Stigma consciousness is the extent to which
members of stigmatized groups expect to be stereotyped by others (Pinel, 1998). In
general, people who believe that others hold more negative attitudes toward their group
should have more experience with managing their stigma during social interactions
(Pinel, 1998). Experience should make using stigma management techniques more
automatic, thus requiring fewer cognitive resources. People who are more aware that
others may view them negatively should have more experience with using strategies that
downplay the stigrnatizing attribute compared to emphasizing it (Goffman, 1963; Taj fel,
1978). However, given that the use of stigma management strategy may be context
dependent, it may also be the case that people who are more aware of the stigma have

more experience with both types of stigma management strategy (Roberts et al., under

53

review). Either way, these individuals should require less cognitive resources when
enacting stigma management strategies, compared to stigmatized individuals who are less
aware of the negative attitudes of others.
Aﬂective Responses to Being Stigmatized

Study 1 demonstrated that people with newly-acquired stigmas express more
negative affect when attempting to use negating strategies to manage a visible stigma or
use afﬁrming strategies to manage a non-visible stigma. Study 2 explored the affective
responses from using these stigma management strategies among people who have
experience with the stigma. As previously stated, the salience of the stigma to the
stigmatized individual during the interaction, as well as their interaction partner if the
stigma is visible, should increase the use of stigma management strategies. This
increased use should increase the level of expertise in conducting these stigma
management strategies (Miller & Myers, 1998). Furthermore, this increased salience
should increase the level of importance that the stigrnatizing attribute has in regard to the
self-concept (Sellers et al., 1998). These factors should contribute to people with stigma
experience expressing more positive affect toward engaging in stigma management
strategies, compared to people with newly—acquired stigmas. This positive affect should
be especially prevalent when utilizing afﬁrming stigma management strategies. Study 2
explored this proposition.
Eﬂectiveness of Stigma Management Strategies

One issue that was not addressed in Study 1 was the degree to which participants
were effective in their impression management. Stigma management can be considered

effective if it reduces the negative impact that the stigma itself creates (Miller & Myers,

54

1998). However, these strategies may not be considered effective if it appears as if the
stigmatized individual is being covert or deceptive. Cognitive load that may incur ﬁom
utilizing stigma management strategies may diminish the ability to try to enact an
incongruent self-image (Paulhas, Graf, & Van Selst, 1989). Inconsistent verbal and
nonverbal behavior may then “leak out” and lessen the effectiveness of the impression
management technique (DePaulo, 1993). As cognitive resources are used up, it should
reduce the effectiveness of impression management techniques. Thus, the effectiveness
of impression management should be poorest when attempting to enact a role that is
incongruent with one’s self-image.

However, the level of experience with impression management techniques in
general, and stigma management techniques, speciﬁcally, should inﬂuence the degree to
which cognitive resources are required, and, ultimately, how effective the technique is in
making a positive impression. Among stigmatized individuals, impression management
techniques should be easier the longer the individual has had to cope with the
stigrnatizing attribute. Thus, stigma management techniques should be more effective the
more experience the stigmatized individual has had to manage it. Smart and Wegrrer
(1999) found that women who were attempting to conceal an eating disorder were rated
as being just as comfortable in a social interaction as women without an eating disorder,
even though the eating disorder women were thinking more about the eating disorder
during the social interaction. These authors suggest that women with actual eating
disorders may learn in time to function in social interactions and thus are more effective
in managing their stigrnatizing attribute. In short, the effectiveness of the stigma

management technique should vary as a function of experience, with people with newly-

55

acquired stigmas being more effective at using negating techniques, compared to
afﬁrming strategies, and people with stigma experience being more effective at using
both of these strategies, compared to people with newly-acquired stigmas.
Overview

Study 2 replicated and extended Study 1 by exploring whether stigma
management experience moderates the effects of stigma management strategy and
visibility of the stigma on cognitive resources (Part 1). In addition, Study 2 explored
whether these stigma management strategies were effective in creating a positive
impression (Part 2). The design of Study 2 Part 1 was similar to that of Study 1 except
Study 2 consisted of individuals with an actual social stigma (i.e., the racial stigma of
African Americans) and individuals with a newly-acquired stigma (i.e., Caucasian
individuals who were asked to portray themselves as African American). Study 2 Part 1
consisted of a 2 (Race of participant: Caucasian, African American) x 2 (Strategy:
Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility: Visible, Non-visible) between-subj ects design. The main
dependent measures of Study 2 were the same measures of cognitive resources and
cognitive depletion used in Study 1. Study 2 also explored factors associated with stigma
experience that can inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources required during social
interactions. The design of Study 2 Part 2 consisted of participants rating the person in
the chatroom transcripts from Part 1. Study 2 Part 2 consisted of the same between-
subjects design as Part 1 with the dependent measures of Part 2 including ratings of
likeability and disclosure.
Hypotheses and research questions:

1. Do some stigma management techniques require less cognitive resources than others?

56

Hypothesis la: For people with newly-acquired stigmas, negating stigma
management techniques should require less cognitive resources than afﬁrming
stigma management techniques.

Hypothesis 1b: For people with experience with the stigma, using an afﬁrming
stigma management technique should require fewer cognitive resources than

using a negating technique.

. Is the level of cognitive resources required different when the stigma is visible?

‘ Hypothesis 2a: For people with newly-acquired stigmas, managing a visible

stigma should require greater cognitive resources than managing a non-visible
stigma.
Hypothesis 2b: For people who have experience with the stigma, managing a

visible stigma should require less cognitive resources than managing a non-visible

stigma.

. Do the type of stigma management strategy and visibility of the stigma interact to

inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources required?

Hypothesis 3a: For people with newly-acquired stigmas, negating strategies
should require less cognitive resources when the stigma is non-visible compared
to visible; afﬁrming strategies should require less cognitive resources when the
stigma is visible compared to non-visible.

Hypothesis 3b: For people with experience with the stigma, afﬁrming strategies
should require less cognitive resources when the stigma is non-visible compared
to visible; negating strategies should require less cognitive resources when the

stigma is visible compared to non-visible.

57

4. For people with experience with the stigma, do stigma experience-related factors

inﬂuence the level of cognitive resources used when enacting stigma management

strategies?

Hypothesis 4a: People with experience with the stigma for whom the stigrnatizing
attribute is more central should require less cognitive resources when using
afﬁrming strategies than when using negating strategies; however, for people with
experience with the stigma for whom the stigrnatizing attribute is less central,
negating strategies should require less cognitive resources, compared to afﬁrming
strategies.

Hypothesis 4b: People with experience with the stigma who are more aware that
they are stigmatized should use greater cognitive resources when enacting
afﬁrming stigma management strategies, especially when the stigma is visible,
compared to people with experience with the stigma who are less aware that they
are stigmatized.

Hypothesis 4c: People with experience with the stigma who have more experience
using negating strategies should use less cognitive resources in the negating
condition compared to the afﬁrming condition; however people with experience
with the stigma who have more experience using afﬁrming strategies should
require less cognitive resources in the afﬁrming condition compared to the

negating condition.

5. What are the affective responses to using these various stigma management strategies

for people with experience with the stigma?

58

o Hypothesis 5a: People with newly-acquired stigmas would feel more negative
affect toward the task and their interaction partner when enacting an afﬁrming
strategy compared to a negating strategy.

- Hypothesis 5b: People who have experience with the stigma should feel more
negative affect toward the task and their interaction partner when enacting a
negating strategy compared to an afﬁrming strategy.

6. How effective are these stigma management techniques in forming a positive
impression for people with newly-acquired stigmas and people with experience with
the stigma?

o Hypothesis 6a: People with newly-acquired stigmas should be more effective
when using a negating, compared to afﬁrming strategy.

0 Hypothesis 6b: People who have experience with the stigmas should be more
effective when using an afﬁrming, compared to negating strategy.

Method — Part 1
Participants
One hundred sixty-ﬁve participants (124 Caucasian, 41 Aﬁican American) who

did not possess a major stigma (other than race for the Aﬁican American participants

using the same restrictions as Study 1) were recruited through the Psychology

Department Human Participants in Research website to participate in part 1 of study 2.'3

Partici ants were run in same-sex sessions as with Stud 1.” Data from 28 artici ants
P Y P P

 

'3 Participants omitted because of stigma included sexual orientation (1 bisexual man), racial minority (7
Asian American, 12 Hispanic), and religious minority (6 Jewish).

" Again, results were not qualiﬁed by the research assistant, gender of participant, or confederate.

59

were omitted from the ﬁnal analyses for the following reasons: 4 participants expressed
that they knew that their interaction partner was a confederate on the open-ended
questionnaire items and during the oral debrieﬁng; 24 participants failed on the
manipulation check items by either stating that they utilized a strategy different than the
one they were assigned (8) or failed to correctly state whether they were visible or non-
visible to their interaction partner (16). Thus, 137 participants were used in the ﬁnal
analyses consisting of 101 Caucasian participants and 36 African American participants
with a mean age of 19.61 years (SD = 2.40).

Measures

Demographics. A demographic questionnaire assessed participant’s age, sex,
race, and ACT total scores (Caucasian participants: M = 25.05, SD = 3.34; Aﬁican
American participants: M = 20.52, so = 3.49; All participants: M = 23.91, so = 3.90).15
This measure also assessed whether participants had a major stigma.

Participants in Part 1 of Study 2 completed several pre-experiment questionnaires
speciﬁcally relevant to a racial stigma.

Racial Centrality. Participants completed a modiﬁed version of the 8-item
centrality subscale of the Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity (Sellers, Rowley,
Chavous, Shelton, & Smith, 1997; a = .84; see Appendix H) which measures how
important race is to the participant’s sense of self. Participants rated each item (e. g., In
general, being a member of my racial group is an important part of my self-image) using

a scale ranging from 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree). Responses were reverse-

 

’5 Caucasian participants reported signiﬁcantly higher ACT scores than Aﬁican American participants,
t(129) = 6.67, p < .01, however ACT scores did not signiﬁcantly differ by experimental conditions.

60

coded when appropriate and the mean response was calculated such that greater scores
reﬂect a more central racial identity.

Awareness of Stigma. The extent to which participants expect to be stereotyped
by others because of their race was measured by the race version of the Stigma-
Consciousness Questionnaire (10-items; Pinel, 1999; a = .85; see Appendix I).
Participants rated each item (e. g., Stereotypes about my race have not affected me
personally) using a scale ranging from 0 (strongly disagree) to 6 (strongly agree).
Responses were reverse-coded when appropriate and the mean for each scale was
calculated such that greater scores reﬂect greater awareness of racial stigma.

Impression Management. To get a baseline measure of the type of race-based
impression management techniques used in their everyday life, participants completed a
modiﬁed version of the Morgan’s (2002) Impression Management scale which assessed
the frequency of afﬁrming (5-item positive distinctiveness subscale; e. g., Try to represent
people of your racial group in a positive manner; a = .89) and negating (5-item
minimization/recategorization subscale; e. g., Try to avoid discussing race and racial
issues; a = .47) strategies (see Appendix J). Participants indicated how frequently they
tend to use each strategy on a scale ﬁom 0 (not at all) to 5 (a great deal). These responses
were reverse-coded when appropriate and the subscales were summed such that greater
scores reﬂect greater use of each strategy.

Participants in Part 1 of Study 2 completed the same post-interview items as in
Study 1.

Cognitive resources during interaction. During the interview portion of the

experiment, participants in Study 2 were given the same information about the

61

confederate as in Study 1 and answered the same questions that assessed the same visual
(e. g., What color was the shirt that your interaction partner was wearing?) and verbal
(typed) information (e.g., What do they like to eat?) This measure served as one
dependent variable for Study 2.

Cognitive depletion due to interaction. In addition, participants completed the
General Mental Abilities Test (Janda, 1996) to assess the level of cognitive depletion
after the interview. The same three scores (CDM-correct, CDM-attempted, CDM-
skipped) were calculated and also served as dependent variables for Study 2.

Positive and negative aﬂect. Participants completed the Positive And Negative
Affect Scale (PANAS, Watson et al., 1988). Responses were summed separately as in
Study 1 such that larger scores reﬂect greater levels of positive affect (a = .88) and
negative affect (a = .82).

Ratings of interview task Participants also responded to the same items as in
Study 1 regarding the eﬂectiveness of the task of making a positive impression (a = .69),
diﬂiculty of the task (a = .75), and overall enjoyment of the task. For each of the
subscales, responses were summed separately such that greater scores reﬂected greater
endorsement.

Ratings of self and interview partner. Participants also responded to the same
items as in Study 1 regarding participants’ likeability of self after the interaction, and
likeability of their interaction partner. For each of the items, responses were summed
separately such that greater scores reﬂected greater endorsement.

Manipulation check Participants completed the same manipulation check and

suspicion items used in Study 1.

62

Procedure

The procedure for Study 2 was similar to Study 1, except Study 2 involved race
instead of physical disability. In addition, Study 2 involved individuals who have
experience with the social stigma of race (i.e., Aﬁican Americans), as well as individuals
who do not (i.e., Caucasian individuals asked to take on the role of being Aﬁican
American). Thus, Study 2 was designed to replicate Study 1 by using Caucasian
individuals with a newly-acquired racial stigma, as well as expand Study 1 by exploring
how African Americans’ experience with a racial stigma may moderate the results found
in Study 1. Because of this change in methodology, minor changes were made to the
experimental procedure and instructions given to the participants.

Pre-experimental procedure. When participants signed up to participate in Study
2 on—line, they completed stigma-related measures including racial centrality, awareness
of racial stigmas, and race-based impression management strategies generally used.

Experimental procedure. The experimental lab procedure for Study 2 was similar
to Study 1. To assist participants with newly-acquired stigmas (i.e., Caucasian
participants) in understanding the stigma management strategy instructions, all
participants were given similar stories to read as in Study 1, except the stories for Study 2
involved race (see Appendix K). The procedure for Study 2 was similar to Study 1,
unless otherwise noted.

The following changes were made to Study 2:

Photo instead of webcam. Instead of having a webcam connected to the
participants’ computer and having them sit in a wheelchair, a photo was used. All

participants were shown a photo of an African American of their own sex which

63

remained on the screen for 30 seconds. Photos of two different moderately attractive
Aﬁican American female and two different moderately attractive African American male
college students were used.16 Each person in the photo was in their late teens-early 20s.
All participants were informed to “role-play that you are the person in the
photograph...act as if you are the person in the photo and respond accordingly.”
Furthermore, all discussion of the wheelchair was removed. All participants wrote for
three minutes about what it would be like to be the person in the photograph.

Impression management strategy manipulation. The instructions for the two
methods were similar to those used in Study 1, except participants in the negate condition
were instructed to avoid any discussion of their race and participants in the afﬁrm
condition were instructed to discuss their race by emphasizing positive qualities about it.

Visibility manipulation. Visibility was manipulated in Study 2 through whether
participants were told that their interaction partner was shown the photograph of the
Aﬁican American individual or not.

Participants in the visible condition were informed that their interaction partner
was shown the same photograph that they were shown and told it was the participant.

Participants in the visible condition were given the following information:

We are also interested in how diﬂerent types of visual information may aﬂect
making a positive impression, so before the interview your interaction partner
will be shown the same photograph that we showed you and be told it is you (their

interaction partner). Also, you will see a live webcam transmission of your

 

‘6 Photos were rated to be moderately attractive (M = 4.74, SD = .80; 7-point scale) and the male and
female photos did not differ signiﬁcantly in attractiveness.

64

interaction partner, and your interaction partner will be aware that you can see

them.

Participants in the non-visible condition were informed that their interaction
partner did not have any visual information about them or the person they were asked to

portray. Participants in the non-visible condition were given the following information:

We are also interested in how different types of visual information may aﬁrect
making a positive impression, so you will see a. live webcam transmission of your
interaction partner, and your interaction partner will be aware that you can see
them. However, your interaction partner will not having any visual information

about you or the person you are portraying (the person in the photo).

Chatroom procedure. The chatroom procedure was the same as in Study 1, and
the confederate “interviewer” asked similar questions as in Study 1, except the
wheelchair-oriented questions were replaced with questions relevant to race (e.g., What is
your racial background). In addition, the confederates used in Study 2 were the same
male and female Caucasian confederates that were used in Study 1. The chatroom
interactions for Study 2 lasted an average of 24.27 (SD = 6.90) minutes (see Footnote 7).

Given that a similar post-interaction measure of cognitive resources was used in
Study 2, the webcam image of the confederate was displayed on the participant’s
computer screen, similar to that of Study 1. Furthermore, the information given by the

confederates was the same as the information given in Study 1. Finally, the post-

65

interaction questionnaires and debrieﬁng were similar to those used in Study 1 with
references to a physical disability or a wheelchair replaced with references to race.
Again, the main dependent variables in Study 2 were the measures of cognitive resources
and cognitive depletion with the measure of cognitive depletion given immediately
following the interaction. All participants received course credit and were entered into a
lottery to win $100.

Method -— Part 2
Participants

140 Caucasian participants (54 men, 86 women; mean age = 20.00 years, SD =
1.82) who were recruited through the Psychology Department Human Participants in
Research website and invited to participate in a study on impression formation.
Measures

The effectiveness of the each participant from Part 1 in making a positive
impression was assessed by the following measures using a 9-point scale ﬁom 1 (Not at
all) to 9 (Very much). Responses were reverse-coded when appropriate and the mean
response was calculated for each measure.

Ratings of individual. Participants rated each transcript on 5 characteristics that
assessed how likable the person in the interview was (cheerful, nice, likable, ﬁiendly,
warm; (1 = .97) and 3 characteristics that assessed how truthful the person in the interview
appeared (truthful, secretive, sincere; a = .89). Greater scores reﬂect greater likablility
and more truthfulness, respectively.

Ratings of eﬂ'ectiveness of impression management. Participants then responded

to 3 items that assessed the eﬂectiveness of the individual in the interview in forming a

66

positive impression (How effective was this person in making a positive impression on
you?, How much do you like this person?, How much do you feel like you got to know
this person?; a = .94). Greater scores reﬂect that the individual in the interview was more
effective in forming a positive impression.

Ratings of interaction behavior. Participants then responded to 3 questions
regarding the interactive behavior of the person in the transcript (How much did this
person elaborate, fully explain his or her responses?, How much emotion did this person
express?, How responsive did this person seem?; a = .97). Greater scores reﬂect greater
displays of overt behavior.

Ratings of eﬂectiveness of the stigma nondisclosure. Finally, participants
responded to 2 questions regarding the eﬂectiveness of not disclosing their race (How
much did this person seem like he or she was concealing information?, Did this person
seem to be trying to hide something about him or herself?; a. = .93). Greater scores
reﬂect greater effectiveness in not appearing secretive or non-disclosing.

Procedure

Participants were escorted to a private computer workstation and informed that
they would be taking part in a study on impression formation. Participants were
instructed to read a series of interviews that could have been written by undergraduate
college students over an Internet chatroom. For each transcript, participants responded to
a series of questions about the person who supposedly wrote the responses. Adapting the
procedure by Kaiser and Miller (2001), each participant read and evaluated 6 transcripts
with the constraint that each set of responses contained at least one transcript from both

of the visibility and strategy conditions. Each transcript was evaluated by ﬁve different

67

raters. Participants were then probed for suspicion and debriefed. All participants in Part
2 received course credit.

Ratings from Part 2 were averaged, producing a single score on each of the
dependent measures for each of the transcripts. Complete data (i.e., responses ﬁ'om ﬁve
different raters) were collected for only 50 of the Part 1 transcripts.17 Data for Part 2
included transcripts from 38 Caucasians and 12 African Americans (see Table 18 for
number of transcripts per experimental condition).

Results — Part 1

Manipulation Check and Suspicion

Manipulation check and suspicion analyses for Study 2 were similar to analyses
conducted for Study 1. Responses on the visibility and strategy manipulation check
items, responses to the written and verbal suspicion items, and purpose of the study item
were visually inspected. Participants who did not respond correctly to the manipulation
check items or who expressed that they knew the interaction was not real were omitted
ﬁ'om the subsequent analyses.

The typed responses from all participants were coded for examples of negation
and afﬁrmation strategies. Responses to seven of the interviewer’s scripted questions
were coded. These questions were “Brieﬂy describe yourself as you think a stranger
would., What is your farnily’s racial background?, What is your earliest childhood
memory?, What is your family like?, Do you think attitudes toward stereotyped groups
have changed over the years?, Have you ever been treated unfairly or discriminated

against?; Describe a time when you accomplished something you are very proud of.”

68

Each response was coded as an example of afﬁrmation if the participant responded in a
way that acknowledged that they were African American either directly (e. g., “I am
African American,” “We are a proud Black family. . .”) or indirectly (e. g., “Both of my
parents are Black”), or attempted to educate or inform their interaction partner about what
it is like to be Aﬁican American (e. g., “. . .being a minority there’s always people who
look down on you”). Each additional time that the participant acknowledged that they
were Aﬁican American in an afﬁrming way was calculated (e. g., “I watch the Aﬁican
American shows on UPN like the Fresh Prince of Bel Air,” “. . .and so I ﬁnally got my
grade school to recognize MLK day. . .”). The response was coded as an example of
negation if the participant minimized the relevance of race (e. g., “I really think everyone
has experienced discrimination at one time or another,” “We don’t like to make a big deal
out of our race”), responded in a way that avoided the fact they were African American
(e.g., “Yes, I have been discriminated against because I am female,” “Let’s just say I am
blessed to come from the family that I do”), attempted to change the topic when race was
mentioned (e.g., “So what year in school are you?,” “Is that important to you?”),
responded in a way that did not mention race (e. g., “When my dad took me to my ﬁrst
baseball game,” “ I am a funny person who likes to crack jokes”), or gave a short
response or completely ignored the question (e. g., “No not really”). Moreover, each time
the participant tried to take the focus off of themselves or their race was calculated (e. g.,
“Did you watch the game last night?”). Examples of afﬁrmation and negation were
summed separately such that each participant had an afﬁrmation score and a negation

SCOTC.

 

'7 Only transcripts that had been evaluated by ﬁve raters were included in the preliminary analyses because
of the impact of extreme scores on transcript with only one or two ratings. Furthermore, only partial data

69

Independent samples t-tests were conducted using the afﬁrmation and negation
scores as the dependent variables to assure that the assigned strategy was used more often
during the interaction. Results demonstrated that participants in the negation condition
used signiﬁcantly more negating techniques (M = 6.40, SD = 1.00) than participants in
the afﬁrmation condition (M = 3.95, SD = 1.38), t(126) = 11.56, p < .01, and participants
in the afﬁrmation condition used more afﬁrming techniques (M = 3.43, SD = 1.74) than
participants in the negation condition (M = 0.64, SD = 0.98), t(126) = -1 1.30, p < .01.18

Zero-order correlations were conducted to explore the relations among the
dependent measures. As in Study 1, the cognitive depletion measures were signiﬁcantly
correlated in the expected direction (see Table 9). However, unlike Study 1, the
cognitive depletion measures were not signiﬁcantly correlated with the cognitive resource

measure.

 

was collected for Part 2 because of the difﬁculty in obtaining Aﬁican American participants.

'8 The mean number of negating strategy responses by experimental conditions for Caucasian participants
are as follows: Negate Visible — M = 6.35, SD = 0.98; Negate Non-visible — M = 6.52, SD = 0.92; Afﬁrm
Visrble - M = 3.59, SD = 1.39; Afﬁrm Non-visible — M = 4.33, SD = 1.37. The mean number of afﬁrming
strategy responses by experimental conditions for Caucasian participants are as follows: Negate Visible —
M = 0.65, SD = 0.93; Negate Non-visible — M = 0.56, SD = 0.87; Affirm Visible - M = 3.52, SD = 1.31;
Afﬁrm Non-visible - M = 2.83, SD = 1.72. The mean number of negating strategy responses by
experinrental conditions for African American participants are as follows: Negate Visible - M = 6.09, SD =
1.38; Negate Non-visible — M = 6.63, SD = 0.74; Afﬁrm Visible - M = 4.13, SD = 1.36; Afﬁrm Non-visible
— M = 4.13, SD = 1.36. The mean number of afﬁrming strategy responses by experimental conditions for
Aﬁ'ican American participants are as follows: Negate Visible — M = 1.00, SD = 1.41; Negate Non-visible —
M = 0.38, SD = 0.74; Afﬁrm Visible - M = 4.13, SD = 2.70; Afﬁrm Non-visible - M = 3.75, SD = 1.83.

70

Table 9. Zero-order correlations of post-interaction cognitive measures for Study 2.

 

Measures M
1) CDM-correct 17.73
2) CDM-skipped 8.67
3) CDM-attempted 30.96

4) Cognitive Resources Measure 10.36

SD 1 2 3
7.29
6.05 -.31**

8.71 .71** -.54**

1.89 .11 -.10 .13

 

Note: N = 131; CDM = Cognitive Depletion Measure. *p < .05, "p < .01.

Main Hypothesis Tests

A series of 2 (Race of participant: Caucasian, African American) x 2 (Strategy:

Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility: Visible, Non-visible) between-subj ects AN OVAs were

conducted to address the proposed hypotheses with the measures of cognitive depletion

and the cognitive resource measures as dependent measures. Again, given that

performance on the cognitive depletion measures were strongly related to ACT scores (r

= .66, p < .01), ACT scores were included as a covariate in these analyses. Means for the

main dependent measures are displayed in Table 10.19

 

‘9 Six participants did not report ACT scores and thus could not be used in the analyses utilizing the
cognitive depletion measure. In addition, the transcripts from six participants were not saved correctly,
thus their scores on the cognitive resource measure could not be calculated.

71

Table 10.

Means and standard deviations for the cognitive depletion measures and cognitive

resource measure for Study 2.

 

Strategy Condition
Afﬁrm Negate
Mean SD Mean SD
Measure Race Visibility Condition
CDM-correct*
Caucasian Visible 19.01 (7.85) 17.46 (7.87)
Non-visible 17.26 (6.53) 16.94 (7.51)
Aﬁican American Visible 15.60 (5.85) 19.04 (4.95)
Non-visible 20.32 (6.27) 17.18 (5.12)
CDM-attempted“
Caucasian Visible 32.49 (8.40) 29.32 (9.1 1)
Non-visible 31.98 (8.1 l) 29.13 (8.49)
Aﬁican American Visible 28.67 (9.54) 31.42 (7.94)
Non-visible 36.60 (13.91) 32.40 (6.99)
CDM-skipped"I
Caucasian Visible 7.30 (5.12) 10.09 (5.96)
Non-visible 7.40 (5.87) 10.64 (5.90)
Aﬁican American Visible 7.91 (4.88) 6.99 (5.54)
Non-visible 5.83 (8.58) 1 1.84 (8.40)

 

72

Table 10 (cont)
Cognitive Resources Measure
Caucasian Visible 10.39 (2.33) 10.33 (1.83)
Non-visible 10.37 (1.77) 10.80 (1.58)
African American Visible 9.50 (1.51) 10.18 (2.14)

Non-visible 11.38 (0.92) 9.00 (1.77)

 

Note: Caucasian Afﬁrm Visible n = 29; Caucasian Afﬁrm Non-visible n = 18; Caucasian
Negate Visible n = 24; Caucasian Negate Non-visible n = 27; Aﬁican American Afﬁrm
Visible n = 8; African American Afﬁrm Non-visible n = 7; Aﬁican American Negate
Visible n = 10; African American Negate Non-visible n = 8; CDM=Cognitive Depletion

Measure *Reported means controlling for ACT scores.

Hypothesis 1 .° These hypotheses stated that using afﬁrming stigma management
techniques, compared to negating techniques, should require fewer cognitive resources
for people with more experience with the stigma (i.e., African Americans), but that the
opposite pattern would be found for people with newly-acquired stigmas (i.e., Caucasian
participants). Support for Hypotheses la and 1b would be demonstrated by a signiﬁcant
race x impression management strategy interaction showing that Aﬁican Americans
performed better on the cognitive measures when using an afﬁrming technique, compared
to a negating technique; whereas, Caucasian participants performed better on the post-
interaction tasks when using a negating technique compared to an afﬁrming technique.

Hypothesis 1 was not supported for any of the cognitive measures [CDM-correct,

73

F(1,122) = 0.22, MSE = 31.90, p = .64, CDM-skipped, F(1,122) = 0.04, MSE = 35.74, p
= .85, or CDM-attempted, F (1,122) = 0.44, MSE = 71.90, p = .51, or for the cognitive
resources measure, F(1,23) = 1.92, MSE = 3.50, p = .17].20

Hypothesis 2: Hypothesis 2 stated that, compared to visible stigmas, managing a
non-visible stigma should be easier (requires less cognitive resources) for people with
less experience; however, compared to non-visible stigmas, managing a visible stigma
should require less cognitive resources for people with more experience. Thus,
Hypotheses 2 would be supported by a signiﬁcant race x visibility interaction.
Furthermore, support for this hypothesis would be shown by planned contrasts
demonstrating that Aﬁican American participants performed better on the post-
interaction tasks (demonstrating more cognitive resources after and during the
interaction) when their interaction partner was aware of their race, compared to when
their interaction partner was not aware of their race; however, Caucasian participants
would show the opposite pattern. Hypothesis 2 was not supported by any of the cognitive
measures [cognitive depletion-correct, F (1,122) = 1.23, MSE = 31.90, p = .27, skipped,
F(1,122) = 0.19, MSE = 35.74,p = .67, or attempted, F(1,122) = 1.92, MSE = 71.90,p =
.17, or for the cognitive resources measure, F(1,123) = .03, MSE = 3.50, p = .87].

Hypothesis 3: Hypothesis 3 stated that for people with a newly-acquired stigma,
negating strategies should require less cognitive resources when the stigma is non-visible
compared to visible, and afﬁrming strategies should require less cognitive resources
when the stigma is visible compared to non-visible; however, for people with experience

with the stigma, afﬁrming strategies should require less cognitive resources when the

 

2° A main effect for impression management strategy was found for CDM-skipped with participants in the
negate condition skipping signiﬁcantly more items, M = 9.89, SD = 6.19, than participants in the afﬁrm

74

stigma is non-visible compared to visible; negating strategies should require less
cognitive resources when the stigma is visible compared to non-visible. A signiﬁcant
race x strategy x visibility interaction would support Hypothesis 3. Speciﬁcally, support
would be found by contrasts showing that Caucasian participants had more cognitive
resources in the non-visible compared to visible condition when using negating
techniques, yet more cognitive resources in the visible compared to non-visible condition
when using afﬁrming techniques. However, Aﬁican Americans would have greater
cognitive resources in the non-visible compared to visible condition when using
afﬁrming techniques, yet more cognitive resources in the visible compared to non-visible
condition when using negating techniques. Although Hypothesis 3 was not supported for
the cognitive depletion measures [cognitive depletion-correct, F ( 1,122) = 2.87, MSE =
31.90,p < .10, skipped, F(1,122) = 1.75, MSE = 35.74,p = .19, or attempted, F(1,122) =
1.10, MSE = 71.90, p = .30], a statistically signiﬁcant 3-way interaction was found for the
cognitive resources measure, F (1,123) = 5.66, MSE = 3.50, p < .05. Simple effects
analyses were conducted separately for Caucasian and African American participants.
Performance on the cognitive resource measure did not differ for Caucasian participants
as a function of visibility condition or impression management strategy (ps > .30).
However, for Aﬁican American participants, those in the afﬁrm non-visible condition
were able to recall signiﬁcantly more information about the interaction and their
interaction partner, compared to those in the afﬁrm visible condition, t(31) = -2.21, p <
.05, and negate non-visible condition, t(31) = -2.80, p < .01. These results partially
support Hypothesis 3.

Stigma Experience-Related Factors

 

condition, M= 7.11, SD = 5.63; F(1,122) = 5.23, MSE = 35.74,p < .05.

75

Zero-order correlations were conducted to explore the relations among the stigma-
related measures (i.e., racial centrality, stigma consciousness, use of racial impression
management techniques; see Table 11). Racial centrality was positively related to beliefs
that one’s racial group is stigmatized (i.e., stigma consciousness). Furthermore, as racial
centrality and beliefs that one is stigmatized increased, so did the use of afﬁrming
impression management strategies. The use of negating and afﬁrming impression

management strategies were positively related.

Table 11.

Zero-order correlations of stigma experience-related measures for Study 2.

 

Measures M SD 1 2 3
l) Racial Centrality 3.35 1.20

2) Stigma Consciousness 3.63 1.10 .62"

3) Negation Strategies 3.60 0.73 .11 .25**

4) Afﬁrmation Strategies 3.12 1.17 .52“ .50M .43“

 

Note: N= 137; *p < .05, I""‘p < .01.

Additional analyses were conducted to explore mean differences in the racial
measures as a function of race (see Table 12). Consistent with previous research,
compared to Caucasian participants, Aﬁican American participants reported that their
race was more important to their sense of identity and that they were more aware that

their race was stigmatized. Furthermore, African American participants, compared to

76

Caucasian participants, reported both avoiding the discussion of race and afﬁrming their

race more often.

Table 12.

Differences in stigma-related measures as a ﬁrnction of race in Study 2.

 

Measure Race of Participant

Caucasian (n=101) Aﬁican American (n=36)

M SD M SD t(135)
1) Racial Centrality 2.97 1.00 4.41 1.09 -7.25**
2) Stigma Consciousness 3.25 .89 4.70 .91 -8.39**
3) Negation Strategies 3.50 .76 3.88 .58 -2.79**
4) Afﬁrmation Strategies 2.68 .95 4.37 .77 -9.56**

 

Note: *p < .05, “p < .01.

Multiple regression analyses were conducted to explore whether these racial
measures inﬂuenced the participant’s performance on the interaction task. Dummy
coding was performed on the strategy (0=negate and 1=afﬁrm), visibility (0mon-visible
and 1=visible), and race (0=Af1ican American and 1=Caucasian) variables and scores on
the stigma-related factors were mean-centered (Aiken & West, 1991). Each regression
was a factorial design with all main effects and two, three, and four-way interactions
entered simultaneously. For the three measures of cognitive depletion, ACT scores were

entered in Step 1 as a control.

77

For each statistically signiﬁcant interaction involving the continuous stigrna-
related factor, simple slope analyses were conducted. It is important to note that in this
study, interactions involving race are most sensibly followed-up separately for Aﬁican-
American participants and Caucasian participants. Unfortunately, the relatively small
number of African-American participants in the study makes follow-up tests using only
these individuals very low power tests. Thus, in some cases where the simple
interactions for African-Americans are signiﬁcant, none of the simple slopes attained
statistical signiﬁcance. In these instances, the nonsigniﬁcant simple slopes are reported
below, and trends should be considered tentative.

Statistically signiﬁcant multiple regression results for racial centrality predicting
performance on the cognitive depletion measure are displayed in Table 13. Hypothesis
4a stated that, for people with experience with the stigma for whom the stigrnatizing
attribute is more central, fewer cognitive resources would be required when using
afﬁrming strategies, compared to negating strategies; however, the opposite pattern
would be found for people for whom the stigrnatizing attribute is less central. In regard
to the number of correct responses on the cognitive depletion measure (panel 1), the
strategy by racial centrality and race by racial centrality interactions were statistically
signiﬁcant, but both were qualiﬁed by a statistically signiﬁcant race by strategy by racial
centrality interaction. F ollow-up strategy by racial centrality regressions were conducted
for Aﬁican American and Caucasian participants separately. These analyses, displayed
in Table 14, demonstrated a statistically signiﬁcant interaction for Aﬁican American
participants, but not for Caucasian participants. Simple slope analyses demonstrated that

for Aﬁican Americans in the negate condition, as racial centrality increased, the number

78

Table 13. Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, racial
centrality, impression management strategies, visibility manipulation, race of participant,

and their interactions among participants in Study 2.

 

CDM-Correct CDM-Skipp_ed CDM-Attempted

BBSEBBSEBBSE

ACT Score 1.30 .68“ .16 -.24 -.16 .17 .78 .35“ .24
Racial Centrality (RC) -3.03 -.49 1.57 2.95 .58 1.70 -l.86 -.25 2.36
Impression Strategy -5.81 -.39 4.96 2.34 .19 5.37 -12.08 -.69 7.46
Visibility Condition 3.33 .22 5.36 3.54 .29 5.81 -7.01 -.40 8.06
Race -1.52 -.09 2.51 .60 .04 2.72 -3.92 -.20 3.78
Strategy x Visibility -.41 -.03 7.27 -8.22 -.61 7.88 15.48 .80 10.94
Race x Strategy 5.36 .35 5.32 -4.85 -.38 5.77 13.89 .76 8.01
Race x Visibility -3.70 -.25 5.63 -4.00 -.32 6.10 5.82 .33 8.47

Race x Strategy x Visibility 2.56 .14 7.73 8.02 .55 8.38 —l3.69 -.65 11.63
Strategy x Racial Centrality 8.16 .94“ 3.17 -7.73 -l.09"' 3.45 12.56 1.23“ 4.77
Visibility x Racial Centrality .96 .12 3.50 -7.58 -1.12* 3.80 5.27 .54 5.27
Race x Racial Centrality 5.26 .62" 2.05 -2.42 -.35 2.22 5.50 .55 3.08
Strategy x Visibility x RC -6.47 -.54 4.77 12.44 1.27“ 5.17 -17.71 -l.26"‘ 7.18
Race x Strategy x RC -11.03 -l.00"'* 3.68 8.32 .92“ 3.99 -l7.01 -1.31* 5.53
Race x Visibility x RC -4.40 -.41 3.87 7.39 .85 4.20 -10.71 -.85 5.82

RacexStrategyxVisibilityxRC8.99 .63 5.29 -12.59 -l.08* 5.73 22.37 1.33“ 7.96

 

Note: N = 131; Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-

visible = 0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, "p < .01

79

of correct items on the cognitive depletion measure marginally decreased, B = -1.85, B = -
.40, SE = .91, p < .10; however, for African Americans in the afﬁrm condition, this
relation was not statistically signiﬁcant, B = 1.57, B = .29, SE = 1.30, p = .25. Aﬁ'ican
Americans whose race was more important were more cognitively taxed when required to

use stigma management techniques that avoided race.

Table 14.
Simple slope regression analyses for racial centrality, visibility, and their interaction
predicting the number of items correct on the cognitive depletion measure for Aﬁican

American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

Aﬁi'can American (11 = 33) Caucasian (n = 98)

B 13 SE B /3 SE
ACT Score .77 .50" .23 1.49 .66" .19
Racial Centrality -1.85 -.37 1.03 .48 .06 .92
Impression Strategy -3.79 -.36 2.25 .53 .04 1.26
Strategy x Racial Centrality 3.44 .58* 1.52 -l .52 -.16 1.22

 

Note: Strategy Condition (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1). *p < .05, ** p < .01.

A number of signiﬁcant interactions involving racial centrality occurred for the
number of items skipped on the cognitive depletion measure (Table 13 panel 2), the
highest order of which was the race by strategy by visibility by racial centrality
interaction. Follow-up strategy by visibility by racial centrality regressions were

conducted for African American and Caucasian participants separately (see Table 15).

80

Table 15.

Multiple regression analyses for racial centrality, strategy, visibility, and their interaction

predicting the number of items skipped on the cognitive depletion measure for African

American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

ACT Score

Racial Centrality

Impression Strategy
Visibility Condition

Strategy x Visibility
Strategy x Racial Centrality
Visibility x Racial Centrality

Strategy x Visibility x Racial Centrality

B

.34

2.42

3.52

-.27

-7.26

-7.47

-4.80

9.61

p
.17

.37

.26
-.02
-.46
-.96
-.64

.90

SE

.43

1.98

6.21

7.12

9.05

3.94

4.72

6.21

B

-.40

.37

-.272

-.57

.23

.60

-.34

.19

l3
-.23

.06
-.24
-.05

.02

.08
-.05

.02

African American (11 = 33) Caucasian (n = 98)

SE

.18

1.34

2.02

1.69

2.66

1.91

1.76

2.46

 

Note: Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-visible =

0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, "p < .01.

Simple slope analyses for the Aﬁican American participants demonstrated that, as racial

centrality increased, the less cognitively taxing the interaction task, as demonstrated by

skipping fewer items, in the negate visible, B = -7 .71, B = -.84, SE = 5.16, p = .18, afﬁrm

visible, B = -.53, B = -.13, SE = 1.16, p = .67, and afﬁrm non-visible, B = -5.34, B = -.51,

SE = 4.51, p = .30, conditions, but not in the negate non-visible, B = 3.25, B = .52, SE =

81

2.68, p = .28. That is, for Aﬁ'ican Americans in the negate non-visible condition, as
racial centrality increased, avoiding the discussion of race became more difﬁcult.

In regard to racial centrality predicting the number of items attempted on the
cognitive depletion measure (Table 13 panel 3), the four-way interaction was again
statistically signiﬁcant. To understand the nature of this interaction, strategy by visibility
by racial centrality regressions were conducted for Aﬁican American and Caucasian
participants separately. As displayed in Table 16, for the Aﬁican American participants,
a signiﬁcant strategy by racial centrality interaction was found, however, for Caucasian
participants, a visibility by racial centrality interaction was found. Simple slope analyses
demonstrated, for Aﬁican Americans in the afﬁrm condition, as racial centrality
increased, the less cognitively taxing the interaction task, as demonstrated by attempting
more items, B = 2.55, B = .24, SE = 2.98, p = .41, however, in the negate condition, the
opposite relation between racial centrality and number of items attempted was found, B =
-.81, B = -.12, SE = 1.74, p = .65. For Caucasian participants in the visible condition, as
racial centrality increased, the number of items attempted decreased, B = -1.46, B = -.18,
SE = 1.09, p = .19, however in the non-visible condition, the opposite pattern was found,
B = .91, B = .10, SE = 1.31, p = .49. In general, these results demonstrate that, for
African Americans, as race became more important, using an afﬁrming stigma
management strategy was less cognitively taxing, however using a negating strategy
required greater cognitive resources. However, for Caucasian participants, as race
became more important, trying to manage a newly-acquired visible racial stigma required

more cognitive resources. No statistically signiﬁcant racial centrality interactions were

82

found for the cognitive resources measure, however, overall, the results for racial

centrality support Hypothesis 4a.

Table 16.
Multiple regression analyses for racial centrality, strategy, visibility, and their interaction
predicting the number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion measure for Aﬁican

American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

African American (n = 33) Caucasian (n = 98)

B B SE B B SE
ACT Score .35 .13 .60 .92 .36“ .26
Racial Centrality (RC) -1 .45 -.17 2.74 3.76 .44* 1.88
Impression Strategy -12.99 -.70 8.63 1.97 .12 2.84
Visibility Condition -4. 10 -.22 9.89 -l . 10 -.06 2.38
Strategy x Visibility 14.75 .69 12.58 1.46 .08 3.75
Strategy x Racial Centrality 12.36 1.18* 5.48 -4.46 -.40 2.68
Visibility x Racial Centrality 3.15 .31 6.56 -5.33 -.50* 2.47
Strategy x Visibility x RC -15.55 -1 .08 8.63 4.41 .31 3.46

 

Note: Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-visible =

0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, "p < .01.

Hypothesis 4b stated that people with experience with the stigma who are more

aware that they are stigmatized should require greater cognitive resources when using

stigma management strategies (especially when the stigma is visible), compared to

83

Table 17.
Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, stigma consciousness,
impression management strategies, visibility manipulation, race of participant, and their

interactions among participants in Study 2.

 

Cogm'tive Depletion Correct Cognitive Depletion Attempted

B B SE B B SE
ACT Score 1.35 .71 .16 .80 .36 .23
Stigma Consciousness (SC) -1 .21 -.18 1.60 -.34 -.04 2.30
Impression Strategy -3.48 -.23 4.98 -9.07 -.52 7.17
Visibility Condition .65 .04 4.21 -8.96 -.51 6.06
Race -.50 -.03 2.87 -1.12 -.06 4.13
Strategy x Visibility 4.87 .30 6.81 19.19 .99 9.81
Race x Strategy 3.57 .23 5.38 11.02 .60 7.74
Race x Visibility -l.06 -.07 4.53 6.58 .37 6.53
Race x Strategy x Visibility -3.30 -.19 7.29 -18.10 -.86 10.51
Strategy x Stigma Consciousness 6.23 .59 3.72 11.91 .95" 5.35
Visibility x Stigma Consciousness 1.31 .14 2.75 6.15 .56 3.96
Race x Stigma Consciousness 3.51 .37 2.13 6.21 .55" 3.07
Strategy x Visibility x SC -1 1.64 -.79"' 5.13 -23.55 -1.35"' 7.37
Race x Strategy x SC -7.24 -.52 4.27 -14.91 -.9l"' 6.15
Race x Visibility x SC -2.77 -.23 3.25 -11.49 -.90* 4.69
Race x Strategy x Visibility x SC 12.39 .67" 5.79 25.92 1.19" 8.33

 

Note: N = 131; Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = l); Visibility Condition (Non-

visible = 0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, "p < .01.

84

experienced people with less awareness that they are stigmatized and compared to people
with newly acquired stigmas. Statistically signiﬁcant multiple regression results for
stigma consciousness predicting number of items correct on the cognitive depletion
measure are displayed in Table 17 panel 1. The four-way interaction (race by strategy’by
visibility by stigma consciousness) was the highest order interaction that attained
statistical signiﬁcance. Follow-up strategy by visibility by racial centrality regressions
were conducted for African American and Caucasian participants separately. These
analyses, displayed in Table 18, demonstrated a statistically signiﬁcant interactions for
Aﬁican American participants, but not for Caucasian participants. For Aﬁican
Americans, a signiﬁcant strategy by stigma consciousness interaction was further
qualiﬁed by a statistically signiﬁcant strategy by visibility by stigma consciousness
interaction. Simple slope analyses demonstrated that, for African Americans in the
afﬁrm visible condition, as stigma consciousness increased, the number of items correct
on the cognitive depletion measure decreased, B = -4.41, B = -.59, SE = 2.5 1, p = .14.
However, for African Americans in the negate visible, B = .18, B = .03, SE = 1.21, p =
.89, negate non-visible, B = .65, B = .17, SE = 2.14, p = .77, and afﬁrm non-visible, B =
5.62, B = .61, SE = 2.73, p = .11, conditions, the opposite pattern was found. Thus, for
African American participants, as awareness about being stigmatized by others increased,
using strategies that emphasized positive aspects of a visible stigma required greater

cognitive resources.

85

Table 18.
Multiple regression analyses for stigma consciousness, strategy, visibility, and their
interaction predicting the number of items correct on the cognitive depletion measure for

Aﬁican American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

Aﬁican American (n = 33) Caucasian (n = 98)

B B SE B B SE
ACT Score .93 .61 .28 1.46 .65** .19
Stigma Consciousness (ST) -.58 -.10 1.32 2.35 .28 1.46
Impression Strategy -4.49 -.43 4.00 .10 .01 2.12
Visibility Condition 1.67 .16 3.40 -.42 -.03 1.77
Strategy x Visibility 5.84 .48 5.45 1.47 .09 2.74
Strategy x Stigma Consciousness 6.29 .82“ 2.96 -1.17 -.10 2.19
Visibility x Stigma Consciousness .45 .07 2.25 -1.37 -. 13 1.84
Strategy x Visibility x ST -10.65 -1.08* 4.11 .67 .04 2.83

 

Note: Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-visible =

0, Visible = l). *p < .05, "p < .01.

Results for stigma consciousness predicting the number of items attempted on the
cognitive depletion measure are displayed in Table 17 panel 2. Again, the four-way
interaction was statistically signiﬁcant and follow-up analyses were conducted (see Table
19). For Caucasian participants, an unexpected visibility by stigma consciousness
interaction was found. Simple slope analyses demonstrated that in the non-visible

condition, as concerns about being stereotyped increased, the number of items attempted

86

also increased, B = 4.34, B = .43, SE = 1.34, p < .01; however, in the visible condition, no
relation was found, B = .08, B = .01, SE = 1.25, p = .95. In regard to the Aﬁican
American participants, similar to the results for the number of items correct with a
statistically signiﬁcant strategy by visibility by stigma consciousness interaction. Simple
slope analyses demonstrated that, in the afﬁrm visible condition, as stigma consciousness
increased, the number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion measure decreased,
B = -4.71, B = -.39, SE = 5.42, p = .42. However, for Aﬁican Americans in the negate
visible, B = 5.59, B = .59, SE = 2.96, p = .10, negate non-visible, B = 1.37, B = .26, SE =
2.93, p = .66, and afﬁrm non-visible, B = 11.56, B = .56, SE = 8.85, p = .26, conditions,
the opposite pattern was found. No statistically signiﬁcant stigma consciousness
interactions were found for the number of items skipped on the cognitive depletion
measure or for the cognitive resources measure. However, statistically signiﬁcant results
supported Hypothesis 4b. That is, for people with experience with the stigma who are
more aware that they are stigmatized, it actually requires greater cognitive resources to

use afﬁrmation stigma management strategies when the stigma is visible.

87

Table 19.

Multiple regression analyses for stigma consciousness, strategy, visibility, and their

interaction predicting the number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion measure

for Aﬁican American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

Aﬁican American (n = 33)

B
ACT Score .24
Stigma Consciousness (ST) .49
Impression Strategy -10.41
Visibility Condition -7.62
Strategy x Visibility 20.48
Strategy x Stigma Consciousness 11.99
Visibility x Stigma Consciousness 5.00
Strategy x Visibility x ST -22.24

It
.09

.05
-.56
--.41

.96

.90

.44

-1.28*

SE

.57

2.70

8.16

6.93

11.11

6.03

4.58

8.38

Caucasian (n = 98)

B

.95

5.93

1.96

-2.40

.95

-3.20

-5.22

2.27

,8 SE
.37** .25
.61“ 1.93
.12 2.81

-.14 2.34
.05 3.63

-.23 2.90

-.43* 2.44
.12 3.75

 

Note: Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Afﬁrm = 1); Visibility Condition (Non-visible =

0, Visible = 1). *p < .05, "p < .01.

88

Table 20.
Post-interaction task cognitive measures regressed on ACT scores, use of afﬁrmation
stigma management strategies, impression management strategies, visibility

manipulation, race of participant, and their interactions among participants in Study 2.

 

 

anitive Depletion Attempted gem—Mpg!

B B SE B ,3 SE
ACT Score .84 .37“ .24 -.25 -.16 .16
Stigma Management - Afﬁrm -4.00 -.53 4.18 6.80 1.31 2.92
Impression Strategy 11.65 .67 9.41 -7.09 -.59 6.57
Visibility Condition -8.36 -.48 6.24 3.71 .31 4.36
Race -6.48 -.32 5.82 5.51 .40 4.06
Strategy x Visibility -1 1.35 -.58 10.66 8.67 .65 7.44
Race x Strategy -10.76 -.59 9.97 5.63 .45 6.95
Race x Visibility 3.03 .17 7.09 -3.08 -.25 4.95
Race x Strategy x Visibility 16.75 .80 11.74 -8.78 -.60 8.20
Strategy x Afﬁrm -9.45 -.92 9.34 2.70 .38 6.52
Visibility x Affirm 9.07 .95 5.23 -9.06 -1.37"' 3.65
Race x Afﬁrm 5.94 .61 4.61 -7.77 -l.16‘I 3.22
Strategy x Visibility x Afﬁrm 4.27 .34 10.44 -3.23 -.37 7.29
Race x Strategy x Afﬁrm 6.66 .57" 9.74 -.30 -.04 6.80
Race x Visibility x Afﬁrm -14.76 -l.32 5.94 10.50 1.36“ 4.15
Race x Strategy x Visibility x Afﬁrm 1.32 .09 11.13 1.93 .20 7.77

 

Note: N = 131; Impression Strategy (N egate = 0, Afﬁrm = l); Visibility Condition (Non-

visible = O, Visible = 1). *p < .05, “p < .01.

89

Multiple regression analyses for the use of aﬂirmation stigma management
strategies in everyday life are displayed in Table 20.21 Hypothesis 4c stated that for
people with experience with the stigma, it should require less cognitive resources to use
stigma management strategies with which they have more experience. The results for the
number of items attempted on the cognitive depletion measure are displayed in Table 20
panel 1. The race by strategy by use of afﬁrmation strategies interaction was statistically
signiﬁcant for the number of items attempted (panel 1). Strategy by use of afﬁrmation
strategy regressions were conducted separately for Aﬁican American and Caucasian
participants (see Table 21). Contrary to the hypothesis, simple slope analyses
demonstrated that the more African Americans in the afﬁrm condition tended to portray
their race in a positive manner (i.e., use afﬁrming techniques), the more difﬁcult the
interaction task was (as shown by attempting fewer items on the cognitive depletion
measure, B = -3.60, B = -.22, SE = 5.00, p = .49). In addition, the more African
Americans in the negate condition tended to portray their race in a positive manner (i.e.,
use afﬁnning techniques), the easier the interaction task was (as shown by attempting
more items on the cognitive depletion measure, B = 1.92, B = .22, SE = 2.18, p = .39).

Results for the use of aﬂirmation stigma management strategies predicting the
number of items skipped on the cognitive depletion measure are displayed in Table 20
panel 2. Results demonstrated statistically signiﬁcant visibility by afﬁrm and race by
afﬁrm interactions that were further qualiﬁed by a race by visibility by afﬁrm interaction.
Visibility by use of afﬁrmation strategy regressions were conducted separately for

Aﬁican American and Caucasian participants demonstrating a signiﬁcant interaction for

 

2' Given the poor reliability for the minimization/recategorization subscale, analyses were not conducted
using this measure.

90

the Aﬁican American participants (see Table 22). Simple slope analyses demonstrated
that the more African Americans in the non-visible condition tended to portray their race
in a positive manner (i.e., use afﬁrming techniques), the more difﬁcult the interaction
task was (as shown by skipping more items on the cognitive depletion measure, B = 7.57,
B = .53, SE = 3.58, p < .10); however, the opposite pattern was found in the visible
condition, B = -1.65, B = -.28, SE = 1.35, p = .24. Thus, for people with experience with
managing a visible stigma in an afﬁrming manner, it requires more cognitive resources
when attempting to conceal the stigma. No statistically signiﬁcant stigma consciousness
interactions were found for the number of correct items on the cognitive depletion
measure or on the cognitive resources measure. Thus, mixed results were found in

support of Hypothesis 4c.

91

Table 21.
Multiple regression analyses for the use of afﬁrmation stigma management strategies,
strategy, and their interaction predicting the number of items attempted on the cognitive

depletion measure for Aﬁican American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

Aﬁican American (n = 33) Caucasian (n = 98)

B 13 SE B 13 SE
ACT Score -.12 -.04 .52 .88 .34* .25
Stigma Management — Afﬁrm 1.94 .16 2.80 -.69 -.08 1.24
Impression Strategy 5.04 .27 5.13 2.82 .17 2.29
Strategy x Afﬁrm -5.31 -.34 4.81 -.19 -.02 1.74

 

Note: Impression Strategy (Negate = 0, Aﬂirm = I). *p < .05, "p < .01.

Table 22.
Multiple regression analyses for the use of afﬁrmation stigma management strategies,
visibility, and their interaction predicting the number of items skipped on the cognitive

depletion measure for African American and Caucasian participants in Study 2.

 

African American (11 = 33) Caucasian (n = 98)

B 13 SE B /3 SE

ACT Score .35 .18 .35 -.39 -.22* .18
Stigma Management — Afﬁrm 7.23 .80* 2.77 .12 .02 .93
Visibility Condition 5.20 .38 3.88 .41 .04 1.67
Visibility x Afﬁrm -9.03 -.94* 3.33 .93 .14 1.28

 

Note: N = 131; Visibility Condition (Non-visible = 0, Visible = l). *p < .05, ”p < .01.

92

Affect Responses to the Interaction Task

Hypothesis 5 stated that whereas people with a newly acquired stigma would feel
more negative affect when enacting an afﬁrming strategy, compared to a negating
strategy, people who have experience with the stigma would feel more negative affect
when enacting a negating strategy compared to an afﬁrming strategy. A series of 2 (Race
of participant: Caucasian, African American) x 2 (Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2
(Visibility: Visible, Non-visible) between-subj ects AN OVAs were conducted to test these
hypotheses. Means are reported in Table 23.

Positive and Negative Aﬂect. In regard to positive affect as reported by the
PANAS positive subscale, a statistically signiﬁcant main effect of race was found,
F(1,129) = 4.48, MSE = .43, p < .05, with African American participants stating that they
felt signiﬁcantly more positive after the chatroom interaction, M = 3.47, SD = .5 8,
compared to Caucasian participants, M = 3.18, SD = .69. Participants did not differ in
their level of reported negative affect as a function of race, visibility, strategy condition,
or their interactions.

Ratings of the interview task Participants did not differ in how effective they
thought they were in making a positive impression as a function of race, visibility,
strategy condition, or their interactions. However, signiﬁcant results were found for the
difﬁculty of the task with a signiﬁcant main effect for visibility condition F(1,129) =
5.84, p < .05, and race, F(1,129) = 13.10, p < .01. As would be expected, participants in
the visible condition stated that the task was more difﬁcult, M = 2.57, SD = 1.15, than
participants in the non-visible condition, M = 2.19, SD = 1.04. In addition, Caucasian

participants stated that the task was more difﬁcult, M = 2.58, SD = 1.03, compared to

93

Aﬁican American participants, M = 1.88, SD = 1.17. However, these main effects were
qualiﬁed by a statistically signiﬁcant strategy x visibility x race interaction, F (1,129) =
6.50, MSE = 1.09, p < .05. Follow-up 2 (Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility:
Visible, Non-visible) between-subj ects AN OVAs, conducted separately by race,
demonstrated marginally signiﬁcant interactions for both Caucasian participants, F (1, 97)
= 3.58, MSE = 1.04, p < .10, and Aﬁican American participants, F(1, 32) = 3.10, MSE =
1.22, p < .10. Simple effects analyses demonstrated that Caucasian participants in the
afﬁrm visible condition found the task to be much more difﬁcult than Aﬁican American
participants in the afﬁrm visible condition, t(36) = 2.75, p < .01. However, Caucasian
participants in the negate non-visible condition also found the task to be much more
diﬂ'rcult than African American participants in the negate non-visible condition, t(33) =
4. 17, p < .01.

F urtherrnore, a statistically signiﬁcant main effect for race was found for how
much participants enjoyed the interaction task, F (1,129) = 5.41, MSE = .97, p < .05, with
Aﬁican American participants stating that they enjoyed the interaction task more, M =
3.86, SD = .96, than Caucasian participants, M = 3.39, SD = 1.00.

Ratings of self and interview partner. In regard to how much participants liked
themselves after the interaction, a signiﬁcant main effect was found for visibility
condition F(1,129) = 5.31, MSE = .61,p < .05, and race, F(1,129)=13.87,p < .01.
Participants in the non-visible condition stated that they liked themselves more, M = 4.06,
SD = .88, than participants in the visible condition, M = 3.74, SD = .84. In addition,
African American participants stated that they liked themselves more after the

interaction, M = 4.33, SD = .72, compared to Caucasian participants, M = 3.73, SD = .87.

94

However, these main effects were qualiﬁed by a statistically signiﬁcant strategy x race
interaction, F (1,129) = 4.80, p < .05, and strategy x visibility x race interaction, F(1,129)
= 6.15, MSE = .61, p < .05. Follow-up 2 (Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility:
Visible, Non-visible) between-subj ects AN OVAs, conducted separately by race,
demonstrated signiﬁcant results for Caucasian participants, but not for Aﬁican American
participants. Caucasian participants demonstrated a statistically signiﬁcant main effect
for strategy F(1, 97) = 7.45, p < .01, and visibility condition, F(1, 97) = 6.37, p < .05, as
well as a signiﬁcant interaction, F(1, 97) = 9.17, MSE = .65, p < .01. Simple effects
analyses demonstrated that Caucasian participants in the afﬁrm non-visible condition
liked themselves signiﬁcantly better after the interaction than Caucasian participants in
the other three conditions, t(97) = 4.44, p < .01.

A statistically signiﬁcant main effect for race was also found for perceptions of
liking of one’s interaction partner, such that Caucasian participants stated that they liked
their interaction partner more M = 3.81, SD = .70, than Aﬁican American participants, M
= 3.53, SD = .77, F(1,129) = 4.40, MSE = .54, p < .05.

Overall, the results of the affective measures demonstrate a main effect for race
with Aﬁican American participants expressing more positive emotions compared to

Caucasian participants. However, overall Hypothesis 5 was not supported.

95

Table 23.

Means and standard deviations for the affective reactions measures and rating of

interview items for Study 2.

 

Strategy Condition
Afﬁrm Negate
Mean SD Mean SD
Measure Race Visibility Condition
Positive Affect — PANAS
Caucasian Visible 3.18 0.57 3.04 0.72
Non-visible 3.47 0.75 3.11 0.71
African American Visible 3.38 0.57 3.43 0.57
Non-visible 3.35 0.48 3.73 0.70
Negative Affect -— PANAS
Caucasian Visible 1 .66 0.48 1 .69 0.65
Non-visible 1.42 0.45 1.67 0.41
Aﬁican American Visible 1.47 0.50 1.66 0.43
Non-visible 1.83 0.64 1.50 0.67
Effectiveness of Task
Caucasian Visible 3.33 0.49 3.48 0.81
Non-visible 3.80 0.51 3.51 0.66
Aﬁican American Visible 3.22 0.65 3.70 0.66
Non-visible 3.54 0.40 3.75 0.90

96

Difﬁculty of Task

Caucasian

African American

Enjoyment of Task

Caucasian

African American

Likeability of Self After Interaction

Caucasian

African American

Likeability of Interaction Partner

Caucasian

Aﬁican American

Table 23 (cont.)

Visible
Non-visible
Visible

Non-visible

Visible
Non-visible
Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

2.86

1.72

2.18

1.69

3.55

4.45

4.22

4.25

3.55

4.45

4.22

4.25

3.72

3.95

3.67

3.38

1.13

1.02

0.91

1.25

0.78

0.67

0.51

0.89

0.78

0.67

0.51

0.89

0.53

0.50

0.89

0.92

2.54

2.63

2.59

1.25

3.36

3.44

3.82

3.88

3.60

3.52

4.18

4.75

3.84

3.78

3.55

3.50

1.02

0.89

1.41

0.46

1.11

0.80

0.98

0.83

0.91

0.89

0.75

0.46

0.69

0.75

0.69

1.07

 

97

Table 23 (cont)
Note: Caucasian Afﬁrm Visible n = 29; Caucasian Afﬁrm Non-visible n = 20; Caucasian
Negate Visible n = 25; Caucasian Negate Non-visible n = 27; Aﬁican American Afﬁrm
Visible n = 9; Aﬁican American Afﬁrm Non-visible n = 8; Aﬁican American Negate

Visible n = 11; Aﬁican American Negate Non-visible n = 8.

Results - Part 2

Eﬂectiveness of stigma management strategy

Hypothesis 6a stated that people with a newly acquired stigma should be more
effective when using a negating strategy and Hypothesis 6b stated that people who have
experience with the stigma should be more effective when using an afﬁrming strategy.
Data collected from Part 2 were used to test these hypotheses using a series of 2
(Strategy: Negate, Afﬁrm) x 2 (Visibility: Non-visible, Visible) x 2 (Race of participant:
Caucasian, Aﬁican American) between-subj ects AN OVAs. Thus, strategy condition,
visibility condition, and race of the participant served as the independent variables and
ratings of the individual, ratings of effectiveness of impression management, ratings of
interaction behavior, and ratings of effectiveness of the stigma nondisclosure were the
dependent variables. Means and standard deviations for the dependent measures are
reported in Table 24.

Ratings of the individual. Results for likeability demonstrated a signiﬁcant
strategy condition x race of participant interaction, F (1, 42) = 5.55, MSE = .70, p < .05.
Simple effects analyses demonstrated that Caucasian participants were rated as less

likable when they were in the negate condition, M = 5.80, SD = .98, compared to the

98

afﬁrm condition, M = 7.03, SD = .61; this analysis was not statistically signiﬁcant for
African American participants. Thus, even though raters were unaware of the actual race
of the person in the transcript, Caucasian participants were liked less when they used a
negation strategy with a newly-acquired racial stigma.

Results for honesty demonstrated a signiﬁcant strategy condition main effect, F (1 ,
42) = 4.59, MSE = .60, p < .05, with respondents from Study 2 being rated more truthful
when they used an afﬁrming strategy, M = 6.73, SD = .59, compared to a negating
strategy, M = 5.97, SD = .89. Thus, although raters were unaware of strategy that
participants were assigned to use, it appears as if they were aware that participants in the
negating condition were hiding something.

Ratings of effectiveness of impression management. Results for impression
management effectiveness demonstrated a signiﬁcant strategy condition main effect, F (1 ,
42) = 4.71, MSE = .80, p < .05, with the afﬁrming strategy being rated more effective, M
= 6.40, SD = .71, than the negating strategy, M = 5.35, SD = 1.05. This main effect was
qualiﬁed by a signiﬁcant strategy condition x race of participant interaction, F (1, 42) =
5.35, MSE = .80, p < .05. Simple effects analyses demonstrated that Caucasian
participants were rated as less effective when they were in the negate condition, M =
5.16, SD = 1.03, compared to the afﬁrm condition, M = 6.52, SD = .62; this analysis was
not statistically signiﬁcant for Aﬁican American participants. Again, it appears that even
though the raters were unaware of the actual race of the participant, Caucasian
participants were seen as less effective when they used a negation strategy with a newly-

acquired racial stigma.

99

Ratings of interaction behavior. Results for ratings of overt behavior
demonstrated a signiﬁcant strategy condition main effect, F(1, 42) = 4.85, MSE = 1.29, p
< .05, with respondents from Study 2 being rated as demonstrating more responsive
behavior when they used an afﬁrming strategy, M = 6.25, SD = .98, compared to a
negating strategy, M = 5.05, SD = 1.25. Again, although the raters were unaware of the
strategy that participants were assigned to use, participants in the negating condition were

rated as more reserved.

Table 24.
Means and standard deviations for the ratings of participants in Study 2.
Strategy Condition
Afﬁrm Negate
Mean SD Mean SD

Measure Race Visibility Condition

 

Ratings of individual — Likable
Caucasian Visible 6.98 0.70 5.68 1.26
Non-visible 7.10 0.46 5.93 0.57
African American Visible 6.40 0.91 6.63 0.96

Non-visible 6.20 0.69 6.19 0.68

100

Ratings of individual -— Truthful

Caucasian

Aﬁican American

Effectiveness

Caucasian

Aﬁican American

Interactive Behavior

Caucasian

Aﬁican American

Effectiveness of non-disclosure

Caucasian

African American

Table 24 (cont.)

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

Visible

Non-visible

6.79

6.94

6.18

6.40

6.49

6.58

6.34

5.30

6.45

6.10

6.69

4.93

3.28

3.09

3.87

4.20

0.60

0.30

0.97

0.28

0.70

0.48

0.73

0.90

0.99

0.87

1.00

0.00

0.91

0.68

0.80

0.71

6.08

5.72

6.16

6.10

5.09

5.24

5.77

5.99

4.91

4.84

5.55

5.46

4.07

4.09

4.10

4.13

1.03

0.59

1.05

1.25

1.18

0.87

1.39

0.46

1.54 .

1.04

1.16

1.17

1.25

0.95

1.39

1.49

 

101

Table 24 (cont.)
Note: Caucasian Afﬁrm Visible n = 12; Caucasian Afﬁrm Non—visible n = 7; Caucasian
Negate Visible n = 10; Caucasian Negate Non-visible n = 9; African American Afﬁrm
Visible n = 3; Aﬁican American Afﬁrm Non-visible n = 2; African American Negate

Visible n = 4; Aﬁ'ican American Negate Non-visible n = 3.

Ratings of eﬂectiveness of the stigma nondisclosure. Ratings of non-disclosure
did not differ as a function of the experimental manipulations.

Overall these results were counter to Hypothesis 6a, and no statistically
signiﬁcant results were found for Hypothesis 6b. In general, Caucasian participants were
rated as less effective when they were using a negating, compared to afﬁrming, strategy.
However, African American participants were not rated as more effective when they
were using an afﬁrming strategy. In addition, the use of negating strategies was rated as
less effective than the use of afﬁrming strategies.

Discussion

In Study 2, the hypotheses that pertain to individuals who have experience in
dealing with a stigma were only partially supported. That is, no differences in cognitive
resources as a function of stigma management strategy were found between people who
have experience with the stigma and those who have a newly-acquired stigma. In
addition, no differences in cognitive resources were found as a function of visibility for
either people who have experience with the stigma or people with a newly-acquired
stigma (contrary to Study 1). However, partial support was found for the proposition that

the effects of the interaction between strategy and visibility on cognitive resources would

102

vary as a function of race. Speciﬁcally, Aﬁican American participants in the afﬁrm non-
visible condition were able to recall signiﬁcantly more information about their interaction
partner suggesting that using this strategy in this condition was less cognitively taxing,
compared to other conditions. Thus, it is suggested that, for people who have experience
with their stigma, using techniques that avoid or deny this aspect of the self is contrary to
the process that is more automatic. For people who have experience with dealing with
their stigma, strategically downplaying this aspect of the self may take more thought,
because it is incongruent with how they are used to presenting themselves (Pontari &
Schlenker, 2001).

Similar to the individual difference factors among people with newly-acquired
stigmas in Study 1, the stigma experience-related factors of Study 2 inﬂuenced the level
of cognitive resources utilized during the interaction task for people with experience with
the stigma. Speciﬁcally, African Americans high in racial centrality used more cognitive
resources to enact strategies that minimized race. However, Aﬁican Americans who
were high in stigma consciousness used fewer resources to enact negation strategies.
This suggests that when the stigma is important, the individual may have more
experience using strategies that afﬁrm the stigmatized identity. However, when one is
overly concerned with the negative reactions of others, they may have more experience
with strategies that downplay or avoid the stigma. In both cases, these strategies should
become more automatic and thus reduce the level of cognitive resources required to enact
them. In addition, results for the use of afﬁrmation strategies suggest that when one has
more experience with using afﬁrming strategies, it may require more cognitive resources

to use negation strategies.

103

Overall, the hypotheses for the affective responses to being stigmatized among
people with a newly-acquired stigma and people with stigma experience were not
supported. No statistically signiﬁcant differences in positive or negative affect were
found as a ﬁmction of race, stigma management strategy, visibility condition, or their
interactions. This result is inconsistent with Study 1. However, main effects were found
for race such that Caucasian participants found the interaction task to be more difﬁcult
than the Aﬁican American participants; and African American participants stated that
they enjoyed the interaction task more than the Caucasian participants. However, these
main effects were not qualiﬁed by stigma management strategy, visibility condition, or
their interactions. Also, inconsistent with Study 1, Caucasian participants (i.e., those with
a newly-acquired stigma) stated that they liked themselves more in the afﬁrm visible
condition, compared to the other experimental conditions; and they liked their interaction
partner more than the Aﬁican American participants. Possible reasons for these
differences are discussed in the General Discussion section below.

Overall the results for the effectiveness of these stigma management strategies
were counter to Hypothesis 6a, and no statistically signiﬁcant results were found for
Hypothesis 6b. In general, Caucasian participants were rated as less effective when they
were using a negating, compared to afﬁrming, strategy. However, African American
participants were not rated as more effective when they were using an afﬁrming strategy.
In addition, the use of negating strategies was rated as less effective than the use of
afﬁrming strategies. People who lack experience with the stigma may be less successful
at stigma management because they lack the skills necessary to do so (Miller & Myers,

1998). Paradoxically, it may be more beneﬁcial for people with newly-acquired stigmas

104

to use afﬁmting techniques. This may be in part because these techniques may be similar
to general impression management techniques that emphasize positive aspects of the self

(Leary, 1996).

105

GENERAL DISCUSSION

Stigmatized individuals use a variety of stigma management strategies as a way of
coping with and attempting to change their socially-devalued situation (Goffrnan, 1963;
Taj fel & Turner, 1979). When the stigrnatizing attribute is concealable, minimizing the
negative effects of one’s stigrnatizing attribute may involve strategically controlling the
amount of information shared that could “discredit” them. When the stigrnatizing
attribute is visible, or if others already know of the stigrnatizing attribute, strategic
management may involve compensating for the impact of the stigrnatizing attribute
during the social interaction (Gofﬁnan, 1963; Miller & Myers, 1998). Stigmatized
individuals often make conscious decisions about how they choose to strategically
manage their stigrnatizing attribute in these social situations. These decisions may be
based, in part, on the level of experience with the stigma and whether the stigma is
visible. The current set of studies explored the effects of visibility and experience on the
level of cognitive resources required when engaging in afﬁrming or negating stigma
management strategies. However, in general, the proposed hypotheses were only
partially supported.
Stigma Management and Cognitive Resources: The Eﬂects of Experience and Visibility

No evidence was found for the assertion that the type of stigma management
strategy used would have an effect on the amount of cognitive resources required during
the social interaction. This hypothesis was not supported for either participants with
newly-acquired stigmas in Study 1 (i.e., participants taking on the stigma of being
physically challenged) or in Study 2 (i.e., Caucasian participants taking on the role of an

Aﬁican American). Furthermore, it was not supported in Study 2 for people who have

106

more experience in dealing with the stigma (i.e., Aﬁican Americans). The lack of
differences in the use of cognitive resources may be due to the fact that among
participants these strategies were actually more similar than dissimilar. That is to say, for
participants in Study 1 and the Caucasian participants in Study 2, the strategic enactment
of both types of stigma management strategies was a unique experience. For these
participants, both types of strategies may have been relatively unfamiliar. This unique
experience would have activated a more controlled thought process that would have used
up cognitive resources (Schlenker & Pontari, 2000). Thus, the novelty of being in this
strange situation and taking on a new role, regardless of the strategy assigned, would
have required additional resources. However, for people with stigma management
experience, both types of strategies may be relatively more automatic, given that people
with stigma management experience tend to use both afﬁrming and negating strategies
depending on the social situation (Roberts et al., under review). Thus, for both people
with newly-acquired stigmas and people with stigma management experience, it may be
the case that equal amounts of cognitive resources would be used regardless of strategy.

These studies also explored the effects of visibility on the level of cognitive
resources required to enact afﬁrming and negating stigma management strategies among
people with newly-acquired stigmas and people who have stigma management
experience. Because, people with newly-acquired stigmas may not possess the
experience, knowledge, or skills to use strategies that acknowledge the stigma, it may be
easier to avoid dealing with it. In addition, because the stigrnatizing attribute may not be
part of their self-concept, it may be easier for them to deny its existence to both

themselves and others (Deaux & Ethier, 1998). Because of this, managing a non-visible

107

stigma, compared to a visible stigma, may be easier when it has been recently acquired.
Study 1 demonstrated when the newly-acquired stigma of being in a wheelchair was
visible, participants demonstrated greater cognitive depletion after the task than when the
stigma was not visible. However, this result was not replicated by the Caucasian
participants in Study 2. Furthermore, no evidence was found to support the proposal that,
for people with experience in dealing with the stigma, it would be easier to manage a
visible, compared to non-visible stigma.

It was also hypothesized that the level of cognitive resources required as a
function of strategy type and visibility of stigma would vary depending upon the level of
experience with the stigma. People with experience in managing the stigrnatizing
attribute have more experience in dealing with the stigma in a wider range of situations
(Cain, 1991). Thus, people with more experience with stigma management have an
opportunity to adopt the coping strategies necessary to enact other forms of stigma
management (Miller & Myers, 1998). With more experience comes the ability to manage
the stigrnatizing attribute in more difﬁcult social situations, such as using afﬁrmation
techniques with a stigma that is non-visible. For example, in Study 2, Aﬁican American
participants in the afﬁrm non-visible condition were able to recall signiﬁcantly more
information about their interaction partner suggesting that using this strategy in this
condition was less cognitively taxing, compared to other conditions. This demonstrates
the ease of using afﬁrmation techniques even in situations where the stigma is not readily
visible. People with experience with the stigma put forth more effort to afﬁrm the stigma
in their everyday lives (Miller, Rothblurn, Felicio, & Brand, 1995), thus gaining the skill

of using this technique even in situations when the stigma is not readily apparent. Once a

108

person gains more experience with dealing with the stigma, it becomes easier to juggle
the demands of managing the discredited identity. However, the proposition for people
with newly-acquired stigmas that negating strategies should require less cognitive
resources when the stigma is non-visible compared to visible, and that afﬁrming
strategies should require less cognitive resources when the stigma is visible compared to
non-visible was not supported in either Study 1 or Study 2.
Individual Diﬂerence and Stigma Experience-Related Factors

Although people with newly-acquired stigmas may not have experience in dealing
with the stigma per se, Study 1 demonstrated that there may be other individual
difference factors that may help when adjusting to managing the stigma. The analyses
exploring individual difference factors that may facilitate or hinder the use of these
stigma management techniques demonstrated that some of these factors may actually
assist participants because they tap into chronic, automatic processes that reduce the
amount of cognitive resources required. Speciﬁcally, being chronically aware of oneself
as a social object seems to reduce the cognitive resources required when enacting stigma
management techniques that acknowledge the stigma. In addition, although mixed, Study
1 also suggests that domain-speciﬁc self-esteem may also assist in speciﬁc stigma
management situations. That is, when the stigma is newly-acquired, feeling socially
conﬁdent may reduce the burden on cognitive resources.

Factors speciﬁc to the stigma may also facilitate and hinder the use of stigma
management for people who have experience with the stigma. First, when the
stigrnatizing attribute is important to the person’s self concept, people may have more

experience in managing the stigma in an afﬁrming manner (Sellers et al., 1997). In

109

support of this notion, Study 2 demonstrated that, when the stigrnatizing attribute is more
central, it was more difﬁcult to enact stigma management strategies that downplayed or
avoided the stigma. However, having a greater awareness of being stigmatized may
actually use up more cognitive resources when enacting afﬁrming stigma management
strategies with a visible stigma. Thus, it appears that when the stigmatized individual is
aware that they may be stereotyped by others, instead of using afﬁrming techniques,
people with more experience with the stigma may be more likely to use techniques that
avoid or downplay the stigma. Finally, although results were mixed for the use of stigma
management techniques among Aﬁican Americans in their everyday lives, some
evidence suggests that, for those who have more experience with using afﬁrming
strategies, more cognitive resources are required when attempting to conceal a stigma.

For people with experience, as the stigrnatizing attribute becomes more important,
the use of afﬁrming stigma management techniques also increase. In turn, as the use of
afﬁrming strategies increases, the ability to use negating strategies becomes more
cognitively taxing. Thus, even though people with stigma management experience may
utilize both types of stigma management strategies depending on the social situation, over
time it may become more difﬁcult to use strategies that downplay or deny the
stigrnatizing attribute.
Aﬁ'ective Responses of the Stigmatized and Responses from Others

Overall, people with newly-acquired stigmas felt more negative affect after the
interaction task than people with experience with the stigma. Negative affect for the
newly stigmatized was especially prominent when trying to avoid discussing a visible

stigma or stating positive aspects about a non-visible stigma (Study 1). In addition,

110

although people with a newly-acquired stigma expressed negative feelings toward their
able-bodied partner in these conditions when they were in a wheelchair (Study 1),
Caucasian participants who were role-playing being Aﬁ'ican American expressed positive
feelings about themselves and toward their Caucasian interaction partner (Study 2).
People with experience with the stigma (Study 2), and for whom it is more personally
relevant, more positive affect regarding the interaction task was expressed. Thus, people
with newly-acquired stigmas expressed inconsistent feelings regarding people engaged in
the conversation depending upon the stigrnatizing attribute; however, people with stigma
management experience expressed more positive feelings toward engaging in the process
of stigma management.

Finally, in general, the use of negation strategies was rated as less effective than
using afﬁrming strategies. That is, raters of the transcripts from Study 2, who were
unaware of the speciﬁc stigma management strategy that was being used, rated
participants in the negation condition as more reserved and more secretive than
participants in the afﬁrm condition. Moreover, the ineffective use of negation strategies
was especially found for the Caucasian participants (i.e., those with a newly-acquired
stigma). This suggests that stigma management strategies that are utilized to reduce the
negative effects of the stigma during social interactions may be less effective for people
with newly-acquired stigmas, especially when negating strategies are used. That is to
say, if the strategic behavior is viewed as suspicious, then the desired impression may not
be achieved.

Cognitive Measures

111

Even though the measure of available cognitive resources during the interaction
and the level of cognitive depletion after the interaction were related in Study 1 (but not
Study 2), they did not demonstrate consistent results. One possible explanation for this
inconsistency may be that, during the interaction, participants were using their available
cognitive resources to either monitor the behavior of their interaction partner in an effort
to make a good impression, or were trying to think of appropriate responses to the
questions posed by their partner, depending upon the strategy or visibility task demands.
Thus, during the interaction, they would be processing more information during the
interaction, including information involving the characteristics of their partner (i.e., visual
information shown over the webcam). However, once this interaction was over, they
may have used up the available resources and thus did not have enough “mental energy”
to perform well on the cognitive depletion task. Although this proposition remains
untested, it would explain why, when visible, participants with a newly-acquired stigma
performed worse on the cognitive depletion measure as a function of the interaction task,
but not on the cognitive resources measure. However, given that people with actual
stigmas tend to pay more attention to their interaction partners (F rable et al., 1990), the
Aﬁican American participants in Study 2 may have remembered more on the cognitive
resources measure due to previous experience in such situations. Future research should
explore this possibility by tapping into excess cognitive resources during the interaction
task by using a measure unrelated to the interaction (e. g., monitoring a list of words
played on a tape recorder in the background). Participants for whom the interaction is

less cognitively-taxing should remember more of the words played in the background

112

than participants who need to use more cognitive resources in order to engage in their
assigned task (Beilock & Carr, 2001).
Limitations

Role-playing paradigm. Having participants take on a role allowed for the
experimental manipulation of having a newly-acquired stigma, however being given a
role limits the psychological relevance of the stigma to one’s self-concept. Thus,
although it may be difﬁcult to try to manage a newly-acquired stigma, the consequences
of stigma management are short-term. For people with actual stigmas, the desire to make
a positive impression and to develop strong stigma management skills may be more
personally relevant. Thus, for these individuals the motivation to perform well on the
interaction task may have more long-term consequences. In addition, other psychological
factors that can not be manipulated in an experimental setting are also relevant to people
with newly-acquired stigmas. For example, for actual people with newly-acquired
stigmas, in addition to the development of effective stigma management strategies, they
must also cope with major life changes and adapt to the emotional consequences of
accepting their stigma. Future research should explore the effects of visibility,
experience, and stigma management strategy on cognitive resources among individuals
with real stigmas (e. g., physically challenged individuals who have varying lengths of
time coping with it).

Different stigmas across studies. Different stigmas were used across the two
studies in an attempt to demonstrate the generalizability of these ﬁndings. However,
being physically challenged and being Aﬁican American may be emotionally different

for able-bodied Caucasian participants playing these roles. Responses supplied by

113

participants during the debrieﬁng sessions suggested that playing the role of being in a
wheelchair was more “enjoyable” than role-playing being Aﬁican American. In addition,
Caucasian participants in Study 2 were concerned that they may appear racist because of
some of their comments during the interaction. Furthermore, being physically challenged
may be more context-speciﬁc than being a person of color. That is, the stigma
surrounding being physically challenged may be more likely to be limited to work-related
situations and be more likely to elicit the sympathy of others (Cahill & Eggleston, 1995).
However, race may be more of an issue in a wider range of social and work-related
interactions (Crocker et al., 1998; Frable et al., 1990). Thus, the interaction task used in
the current studies may have been more relevant to managing a racial stigma, rather than
a physical stigma.
Conclusion

The current work adds to the growing body of research on stigma management by
exploring the effects of visibility and experience. Much research suggests that it may be
strategic for members of stigmatized groups to manage their stigma depending on the
social context, such as the prejudice reactions of others (Branscombe & Ellemers, 1998;
Cain, 1991; Miller et al., 1995). However, the current research also supports the
contention that experience with the stigma should also be a determining factor (Chrobot-
Mason et al., 2001).

Stigrnatization has been described as a “predicament” of possessing an attribute
that is devalued in certain social contexts (Crocker et al., 1998). However, both
individuals with newly-acquired stigmas and those with stigma management experience

face an additional predicament in the strategic management of their stigma. Although it

114

may be easier for people with newly-acquired stigmas to strategically manage the
stigrnatizing attribute (especially when it is not visible) by denying the stigma or
downplaying its relevance, this strategy may be less successful for people who lack
stigma management skills. In addition, using negating strategies may add an additional
strain on their ability to function in a social interaction by reducing the level of intimacy
in one’s interpersonal relationships (Herek & Capitanio, 1997), as well as reducing access
to social support (Frable, Wortrnan, & Joseph, 1997) and other beneﬁts (e.g., medical
support for people living with HIV; Herek, 1999). Thus, paradoxically, the current work
suggests that among people who lack stigma management experience, using negating
strategies may place less cognitive strain on them, but the use of afﬁrming strategies may
actually be conducive to interpersonal relationships by reducing the level of suspicion in
these relationships.

For people who have experience with stigma management, making stigma
management decisions may be very easy and somewhat automatic. However, they may
also face a dilemma. The increased awareness of being stigmatized may have a
paradoxical effect on the use of stigma management strategies. This increased awareness
of being stigmatized should increase the salience of the stigma during social interactions.
As a result of this increased awareness, the stigmatized individual should use stigma
management strategies more often. The current research suggests particularly the use of
negating techniques. However, when the stigma is more salient, either because of
concerns over being stereotyped by others or because the stigma is visible, it may also
become more central (Stryker & Serpe, 1994). In an attempt to give the situation

meaning, the stigmatized individual may incorporate the stigma into their sense of self

115

(Cross & Strauss, 1998). In turn, as the stigrnatizing attribute becomes more important,
the use of afﬁrming stigma management techniques should also increase. The current
research suggests that as the use of afﬁrming strategies increases, the ability to use
negating strategies becomes more cognitively taxing. Thus, even though people with
stigma management experience may utilize both types of stigma management strategies
depending on the social situation, over time it may become more difﬁcult to use
strategies that downplay or deny the stigrnatizing attribute. Therefore, the current work
suggests that although using both forms of stigma management strategies may be
available to people who have more experience, using negating strategies may actually
become more difﬁcult over time.

The process of stigma management is complicated because it involves the
reactions of others, concerns over the negative reactions of others, and the abilities of the
stigmatized individual (Crocker et al., 1998; Miller & Kaiser, 2001; Miller & Myers,
1998; Quinn et al., 2004). By choosing to disclose, the stigmatized face the possibility of
being ostracized, harassed, and ridiculed. However, by not disclosing, they may create an
environment of distrust and secrecy (Cain, 1991). It was the intent of this work to
contribute to the growing body of research on stigma management by exploring the
cognitive factors that inﬂuence the use of stigma management strategies. Future research
should continue to explore these issues among other stigmatized groups to explore how
the differences and similarities among these groups may affect one’s ability to use these

stigma management strategies.

116

APPENDICES

117

Appendix A
Demographic questionnaire

We are interested in some information about who you are. Please complete the following

 

questions.
Gender: Female Male Other: specify
What is your age?

What year are you in school?

First Year Third Year Filth Year

Second Year Fourth Year Sixth Year and beyond

What is your major?

 

What is your current overall GPA in college?
What was your overall SAT score before entering college?

What is your racial group (please choose one)?

White/Caucasian Black/Aﬁican-American
Asian or Paciﬁc Islander Hispanic/Latino/Latina
Native American/American Indian

Mulitraciallmultiethnic (please describe):

 

Other (please describe):

 

What are your biological parents’ racial backgrounds?

Father Mother
White/Caucasian
Black/Aﬁican-American
Asian or Paciﬁc Islander

Hispanic/Latino/Latina

118

Native American/American Indian
Mulitracial/multiethnic

Other

Were you born in the US? Yes No

If no, where were you born?

 

At what age did you come to the US? years of age
What is your religious preference?

Jewish (please specify)
Reform Orthodox Other (describe)

 

Christian (please specify)
Catholic Protestant Evangelical Orthodox

New Age/Metaphysical Other (describe)

 

Islamic
Hindu
Eastern (e.g. Taoist, Buddhist)

No religious preference

Other (please specify):

 

Please check all that apply:

__ I consider myself to be at least 40 pounds overweight.
__ I am terriﬁed of being overweight.

I am always concerned with a desire to be thinner.

I was voted homecoming king/queen in high school.

I use a wheelchair or braces to get around.
__ I have a physical deformity that is noticeable by others.
_ I consider myself to be an outstanding athlete.

Conrpared to other university students, I consider myself to be above average in intelligence

119

Appendix B
Self-Consciousness Scale (F enigstein et al., 1975)
1. I’m concerned about my style of doing things. (P)*
2. It takes me time to overcome my shyness in new situations. (S)
3. I’m concerned about the way I present myself. (P)
4. I have trouble working when someone is watching me. (S)
5. I get embarrassed very easily. (S)
6. I’m self-conscious about the way I look. (P)
7. I don’t ﬁnd it hard to talk to strangers. (S)
8. I usually worry about making a good impression. (P)
9. I feel anxious when I speak in front of a group. (S)
10. One of the last things I do before I leave my house is look in the mirror. (P)*
11. I’m concerned about what other people think of me. (P)
12. I’m usually aware of my appearance. (P)

13. Large groups make me nervous. (S)

*Dropped Item; (P) — Public Self-Consciousness Subscale; (S) — Social Anxiety Subscale

120

Appendix C
Self-Presentational Concern Scale (Lennox & Wolfe, 1984)
. I usually worry about making a good impression.

. I am concerned about the way I present myself.

. I am self-conscious about the way I look.

. I am concerned about what other people think of me.

. I am concerned about my style of doing things.

121

10.

11.

l2.

13.

14.

15.

Appendix D

Modiﬁed version of the State Self-Esteem Scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991)

. In general, I feel conﬁdent in my abilities. (P)

In general, I am wonied about whether I am regarded as a success or failure. (S)
Most of the time, I feel satisﬁed with the way my body looks. (A)

I generally feel frustrated or rattled when performing a task. (P)

Most of the time, I feel that I have trouble understanding things that I read. (P)
In general, I feel that others respect and admire me. (A)

In general, I feel dissatisﬁed with my weight. (A)

Most of the time, I feel self-conscious. (S)

Most of the time, I feel as smart as others. (P)

In general, I feel displeased with myself. (S)

In general, I feel good about myself. (A)

I am pleased with my appearance. (A)

Most of the time, I am wonied about what other people think of me. (S)

Most of the time, I feel conﬁdent that I understand things. (P)

I feel inferior to others most of the time. (S)

16. Most of the time, I feel unattractive. (A)

17. Most of the time, I feel concerned about the impression I am making. (S)

18. I feel that I have less scholastic ability than others. (P)

19. Most of the time, I feel like I’m not doing well. (P)

20. Most of the time, I am worried about looking foolish. (S)

*(P) - Performance Subscale; (S) — Social Subscale; (A) — Appearance Subscale

122

Appendix E
Cognitive Depletion Measure (General Mental Abilities Test; Janda, 1996)
Analogies
Scant is to deﬁcient as sedate is to _.
Serene Moody Frivolous F lippant Skip
l. Renounce is to accept as imperfect is to _.
Defective Deﬁcient Flawless Scanty Skip
2. Lack is surplus as renounce is to __
Abjure Accept Repudiate Abdicate Skip
3. Ascertain is to learn as petty is to _.
Trivial Magnanirnous Signiﬁcant Substantial Skip
4. Essential is to fundamental as endorse is to _.
Sanction Condemn Denounce Reprove Skip
5. Exile is to ostracize as ethical is to_.
Immoral Honorable Promiscuous Lecherous Skip
6. Oppression is to justice as obtain is to_.
F orgo Purchase Procure Acquire Skip
7. Sheer is to opaque as parallel is to _
Analogous Coinciding Divergent Similar Skip
8. Remit is to retain as nasty is to___.
Repellent Odious Beastly Delightful Skip
9. Bat is to human as whale is to _.

Frog Bear Bird Carp Skip

123

10. Efface is to obliterate as general is to .

Inexact Exact

Extinct

11. Large is to minute as paciﬁc is to .

Bellicose Halcyon
Vocabulary
Cabinet
Bureau Federal

12. Obstacle
Irnpediment Gate
13. Content
Shape Hinder
14. Abdicate
Appease Suggest
l 5. Loquacious

Parsimonious Courageous

l 6. Liturgy
Livid Angry
l 7. Pastoral
Religious Graze
18. Mope
Stupid Relax
19. Laconic

Concise Intelligent

Tranquil

Open

Yard

Satisﬁed

Dictate

Verbose

Ritual

Neglect

Clean

Colorful

124

Speciﬁc

Placid

Drawer

Gateway

Appalled

Resign

Cautious

Spoiled

Peaceful

Apathetic

Quiet

Skip

Skip

Skip

Skip

Skip

Skip

Skip

Skip

Skip

20. Serpentine
Treacherous Frightening Misleading Silly Skip
2 1 . Miscreant
Villain Incorrect Ineptitude Fortuitous Skip
22. Ostentatious
Generous Brilliance Pecuniary Pretentious Skip
General Information
23. What is the ﬁrst month of the year that has exactly 30 days?
January February March April Skip
24. What planet has the shortest year?
Earth Pluto Mercury Uranus Skip
25. What is the world’s northernmost national capital?
Stockhohn London Reykjavik Oslo Skip
26. To the nearest day, how long does it take the moon to revolve around the Earth?
1 day 27 days 30 days 365 days Skip
27. What is the Fahrenheit equivalent of 0 degrees Celsius?
-32 degrees 0 degrees 32 degrees 212 degrees Skip
28. How many dimensions does a solid have?
One Two Three Four Skip
29. Who wrote the book Gone with the Wind?
Sylvia Plath Scarlett O’Hara Gertrude Stein Margaret Mitchell Skip
30. In what month is Groundhog Day?

January February March May Skip

125

31. What is “The Windy City”?
New York Detroit Chicago San Francisco Skip
32. How many miles are there in a kilometer?
.4 .6 l 1.6 Skip
33. The two cities that were the subject of Dickens’s A T ale of Two Cities were London
and what other city?
Madrid Paris Berlin New York Skip
Mathematical Ability
34.If2x+y=5,then6x+3y=?
2/5 3/9 15 18 Skip
35. One side of a rectangle is 3 feet long and the diagonal is 5 feet long. What is the
area?
6 7.5 12 15 Skip
36. Rosanne’s trail mix uses 6 ounces of M&Ms for every 9 ounces of Hershey’s Kisses.
How many ounces of M&Ms are needed for 75 ounces of trail mix?
25 30 32.5 36 Skip
37. The diagonal of a rectangle is 5 feet, and one side is 4 feet long. What is the
perimeter?
12 feet 14 feet 16 feet 18 feet Skip
38. A club of 60 people has 36 men. What percentage of the club is women?
20% 24% 40% 48% Skip
39. The average of 3 single-digit numbers is 7. The smallest number that one of the

numbers can be is:

126

0 1 2 3 Skip
40. The hypotenuse of a right triangle is 5 feet long, and its area is 6 square feet. One of
the sides of the triangle is:
1.2 feet 2 feet 2.5 feet 4 feet Skip
41.1/4 x 2/3 x 3/2 = ?
1/4 5/9 6/9 3 Skip
42. 1/4 x 3/4 divided by 4/5 = ?
7/ 13 15/64 15/4 12/20 Skip
43. Which of the following is the largest number?
13/24 21/40 36/70 51/100 Skip
44. Sally is 2 years older than her brother. Twelve years ago, she was twice as old as he
was. How old is Sally now?
14 16 20 32 Skip
45. There were 16 teams in a basketball tournament. When a team lost, it was eliminated
from the tournament. How many games had to be played to determine a champion?

4 9 15 31 Skip

127

Appendix F

Positive and Negative Affect Scale (PANAS; Watson etal., 1988)

_ interested __ irritable __ distressed _ alert

__ excited _ ashamed _ upset __ inspired
_ strong __ nervous _ guilty __ determined
_ scared _ attentive _ hostile __ jittery
_ enthusiastic _ active _ proud __ aﬁ'aid

128

Appendix G

Scenarios for Study 1

Afﬁrming strategies:

1.

Sarah has been a paraplegic her entire life. Because of a birth defect, she was born
without the use of her arms. Through the use of artiﬁcial limbs, Sarah has learned to
cope with this disability. However, recently she and her husband moved to a small
New England town. After moving, she soon became aware that many of the
townspeople were not too friendly toward her. For example, she realized that the
cashier at the local grocery store would often engage others in ﬁiendly conversation,
but, when Sarah was in line, she did not say anything. Sarah discussed this with her
husband and the fact that she was generally viewed by others in the town as different.
She and her husband ﬁgured out that the best way to deal with the townspeople was
to emphasize the positive characteristics about her disability and have open
discussions to try to understand the perspectives of the townspeople and help them to
understand her. Sarah now feels it is important to be a role model for people with
disabilities by breaking stereotypes. Now, when Sarah goes to the grocery store she
engages the cashier in conversation and will share important stories with her about
what it is like to wear the prosthetic arms.

Robert recently was diagnosed with a neurological disease that makes it difﬁcult for
him to get around without the use of braces or a wheelchair. Since the effects of the
disease have become more noticeable, he feels out of place and different. He ﬁnds it
difﬁcult living in a culture that perpetuates ideals of perfection, especially when it

comes to a person’s body. He ﬁnds it particularly difﬁcult to date because many

129

times he meets women who are prejudiced against him because the way he looks. He
is afraid that women will reject him because he has to use a wheelchair. Because of
this, when he meets a woman that he really likes, he tends to emphasize that he is
content with his life. He refuses to hide the fact that he has to use a wheelchair. In
fact, he realizes that he has come to appreciate more important qualities in both
himself and in the women that he dates. He realizes that his experiences with his
disability have made him a stronger person who values what is inside a person instead
of what they look like on the outside. When he encounters the negative remarks of
others, he will often challenge their negative comments and work to increase the
acceptance of disabled people in this culture by emphasizing their physical
capabilities.

. When Erin was 7, she was riding with her father in the car and they got into a bad
trafﬁc accident. Erin’s dad was badly injured and she was paralyzed from the waist
down. Ever since she left the hospital, she has had to use a wheelchair to get around.
After the accident, when she returned to school she noticed that her fellow classmates
treated her differently. In fact, Erin, who is now 19 and in college, has realized over
the years that many people treat her differently. When others see that she is in a
wheelchair, they tend to have a negative reaction toward her. They tend to look down
or look away in an effort not to stare at her and relieve their discomfort with her
physical disability. Often, Erin will not get invited to parties and other social events
because people are not sure what to say to her. When she does interact with people
who are not like her, she tends to feel left out of the conversation because people do

not know what to say. Erin has learned to cope with these reactions by getting

130

involved in various clubs around her school. Through these organizations, she has
made many ﬁiends and has demonstrated that she still can be active and productive.
In fact, she recently got involved with the Special Olympics and will share her
success in sports with others. By getting involved, she tries to breakdown stereotypes
about people who are in wheelchairs. Now when she gets invited to parties, she ﬁnds
that people look her in the eyes because they are more comfortable with her

disability.

Negating strategies:

1.

Sarah has been a paraplegic her entire life. Because of a birth defect, she was born
without the use of her arms. Through the use of artiﬁcial limbs, Sarah has learned to
cope with this disability. However, recently she and her husband moved to a small
New England town. After moving, she soon became aware that many of the
townspeople were not too friendly toward her. For example, she realized that the
cashier at the local grocery store would often engage others in ﬁiendly conversation,
but, when Sarah was in line, she did not say anything. Sarah discussed this with her
husband and the fact that she was generally viewed by others in the town as different.
She ﬁgured out that the best way to deal with the townspeople that they encountered
was to emphasize ways she was similar to the other townspeople and be more like
them. Sarah believes it is important to minimize the fact that she is in a wheelchair
and, if possible, not to discuss it. Now, when Sarah goes to the grocery store she
engages the cashier in conversation about issues of the town and will share important
stories with her about why she likes living in this town, but will not mention the fact

that she is in a wheelchair.

131

¥

2. Robert recently was diagnosed with a neurological disease that makes it difﬁcult for
him to get around without the use of braces or a wheelchair. Since the effects of the
disease have become more noticeable, he feels out of place and different. He ﬁnds it
difﬁcult living in a culture that perpetuates ideals of perfection, especially when it
comes to a person’s body. He ﬁnds it particularly difﬁcult to date because many
times he meets women who are prejudiced against him because the way he looks. He
is afraid that women will reject him because he has to use a wheelchair. Because of
this, when he meets a woman that he really likes, he tends to try to conceal or cover
up the handles, so people can not see the metal arms. When he encounters the
negative remarks of others, he will often say that the disability is not that bad. When
he is involved in non-face-to-face contact (e.g., on the phone or on-line) with others
who do not know him, he will not mention his disability.

3. When Erin was 7, she was riding with her father in the car and they got into a bad
trafﬁc accident. Erin’s dad was badly injured and she was paralyzed from the waist
down. Ever since she left the hospital, she has had to use a wheelchair to get around.
After the accident, when she returned to school she noticed that her fellow classmates
treated her differently. In fact, Erin, who is now 19, has realized over the years that
many people treat her differently. When others see that she is in a wheelchair, they
tend to have a negative reaction toward her. They tend to look down or look away in
an effort not to stare at her and relieve their discomfort with her physical disability.
Often, Erin will not get invited to parties and other social events because people are
not sure what to say to her. When she does interact with people who are not like her,

she tends to feel left out of the conversation because people do not know what to say.

132

Erin has learned to cope with these reactions by trying to limit the effect that her
being in a wheelchair has when dealing with others. When others ask why she is in a
wheelchair, she generally avoids discussing it. Also, she tries to avoid behaviors that
will draw focus to the fact that she is in a wheelchair. Now when she gets invited to
parties, she ﬁnds that people look her in the eyes because they see her instead of the

wheelchair.

133

Appendix H
Centrality subscale (Sellers et al., 1997)
. Overall, my race has very little to do with how I feel about myself.
. In general, my race is an important part of my self-image.
. My destiny is tied to the destiny of other people of my race.
. My race is unimportant to my sense of what kind of person I am.
. I have a strong sense of belonging to people in my racial group.
. I have a strong attachment to other people in my racial group.
. My race is an important reﬂection of who I am.

. Being a person of my racial group is not a major factor in my social relationships.

134

8.

9.

Appendix I
Race version of the Stigma-Consciousness Questionnaire (Pinel, 1999)
Stereotypes about my race have not affected me personally.
I never worry that my behaviors will be viewed as stereotypical of my race.
When interacting with people of other races, I feel like they interpret all my behaviors
in terms of my race.

Most people of other races do not judge people of my race on the basis of race.

. My race does not inﬂuence how others act with me.

I almost never think about my race when I interact with people of other races.
My race does not inﬂuence how people act with me.
Most people of other races have a lot more racist thoughts than they actually express.

I often think that people of other races are unfairly accused of being racist.

10. Most people of other races have a problem viewing people of my race as equals.

135

Appendix J

Morgan (2002) Impression Management scale

How frequently do you use this strategy when interacting with people of different races

than your own?

1.

2.

9.

Try to be seen as an individual, rather than as a member of a racial group. (N)
Try to avoid discussing race and racial issues. (N)
Try to emphasize the experiences or beliefs you have in common with people of other

races. (N)

Try to communicate your knowledge of “mainstream” culture. (N)

. Try to avoid conducting yourself in ways that are considered typical of people of your

race. (N)

Try to represent people of your racial group in a positive manner. (A)

Try to communicate the inaccuracy of stereotypes about people of your racial group.
(A)

Try to educate people of other racial groups about the accomplishments of people of
your racial group. (A)

Try to share aspects of your racial group culture with people of other races. (A)

10. Try to be seen as an advocate for people of your racial group. (A)

*(N) - Negation Strategy Subscale; (A) — Afﬁrmation Strategy Subscale

136

Appendix K

Scenarios for Study 2

Afﬁrming strategies:

1.

Sarah is an Aﬁican American woman who recently moved to a small New England
town. When she and her husband moved to this town, she realized that there were not
a lot of other Aﬁican Americans who lived in the predominately White town. She
soon became aware that many of the townspeople were not too ﬁiendly toward her
and her husband. For example, she realized that the cashier at the local grocery store
would often engage others in ﬁiendly conversation, but, when Sarah or her husband
were in line, she did not say anything. Sarah discussed this with her husband and the
fact that they were generally viewed by others in the town as different. She and her
husband ﬁgured out that the best way to deal with the townspeople was to emphasize
the positive characteristics about being African American and have open discussions
on race to try to understand the perspectives of the townspeople and help them to
understand her and her husband. Sarah now feels it is important to be a role model of
the Black community by breaking stereotypes. Now, when Sarah goes to the grocery
store she engages the cashier in conversation and will share important stories with her
about what it is like to be an African American and the personal pride she feels.

John is a Black man who lives in a large urban area. Although he has many Aﬁican
American ﬁiends and a supportive family, there are times when he encounters people
who do not like him because of his race. For example, there are people who he works
with who have made negative comments and racist jokes. He has often overheard the

punchline of derogatory racist jokes from his colleagues. Because John works for a

137

large corporation, there are times when he is required to attend company functions.
During these functions, people often chat about their personal and social lives outside
of work. For example, his boss will often discuss his achievements and the private
clubs he belongs to. In these situations, John often feels that he should contribute to
the conversation. When asked about his personal life, John often tells them he is
involved in many Black political organizations. He will also discuss important
accomplishments of other African Americans and will talk about Black culture and
the accomplishments of Black people throughout American history. He feels it is
important that his White colleagues see what it is like to be a Black man.

. Erin is a young African American woman (age 19) who recently left home to go to
college. Since leaving her family and community back home, she has realized that
people treat her differently because she is attending a predominately White university.
When others meet her for the ﬁrst time they tend to have a negative reaction toward
her because of her race. Those who do not have a negative attitude toward her still
tend not to talk to her. Often, Erin will not get invited to parties and other social
events. When she does interact with other White students, she tends to feel left out of
the conversation because people do not know what to say. Erin has learned to cope
with these reactions by getting involved in various clubs around her school. Through
these organizations, she has met other Black ﬁiends who are involved in educating
others regarding the prejudice and discrimination facing African Americans. She also
spends time talking about the unique aspects of Black culture. Now when she gets
invited to parties, she ﬁnds she has plenty to talk about because she can talk about

things that are important to her.

138

Negating strategies:

1.

Sarah is an Aﬁican American woman who recently moved to a small New England
town. When she and her husband moved to this town, she realized that there were not
a lot of other Aﬁican Americans who lived in the predominately White town. She
soon became aware that many of the townspeople were not too friendly toward her
and her husband. For example, she realized that the cashier at the local grocery store
would often engage others in friendly conversation, but, when Sarah or her husband
were in line, she did not say anything. Sarah discussed this with her husband and the
fact that they were generally viewed by others in the town as different. She and her
husband ﬁgured out that the best way to deal with the townspeople that they
encountered was to emphasize ways they were similar to the White townspeople and
to try to take the perspective of the townspeople and be more like them. Sarah now
feels it is important to ﬁt in with the other townspeople, and dress and act like them.
Sarah believes it is important to minimize her race and not appear too “Black.” Now,
when Sarah goes to the grocery store she engages the cashier in conversation about
issues of the town and will share important stories with her about why she likes living
in this town.

John is a Black man who lives in a large urban area. Although he has many African
American ﬁiends and a supportive family, there are times when he encounters people
who do not like him because of his race. For example, there are people who he works
with who have made negative comments and racist jokes. He has often overheard the
punchline of derogatory racist jokes ﬁ'om his colleagues. Because John works for a

large corporation, there are times when he is required to attend company functions.

139

During these functions, people often chat about their personal and social lives outside
of work. For example, his boss will often discuss his achievements and the private
clubs he belongs to. In these situations, John often feels that he should contribute to
the conversation. When asked about his personal life, John often tends to make up
stories. Even though he doesn’t like lying, he feels there is no reason to say anything
if he doesn’t have to. Although he is heavily involved in many Black political
organizations, he avoids talking about it because of the ridicule that can come ﬁ'om it.
When he is involved in non-face-to-face contact (e. g., on the phone or on-line) with
others who do not know him, he will not mention his race.

. Erin is a young African American woman (age 19) who recently left home to go to
college. Since leaving her family and community back home, she has realized that
people treat her differently because she is attending a predominately White university.
When others meet her for the ﬁrst time they tend to have a negative reaction toward
her because of her race. Those who do not have a negative attitude toward her still
tend not to talk to her. Often, Erin will not get invited to parties and other social
events. When she does interact with other White students, she tends to feel left out of
the conversation because people do not know what to say. Erin has learned to cope
with these reactions by avoiding discussing race as much as possible. She has gotten
involved in many clubs on campus that are predominately White and when the
discussion of race comes up, she avoids talking about it. Furthermore, when
completing information about herself, she will skip over any questions that ask about

her race or family. Instead, she tries to appear like any other “White” student on

140

campus. Now when she gets invited to parties, she ﬁnds she has plenty to talk about

because she talks about topics that are important to the White students.

141

REFERENCES

Aiken, L.S., & West, S.G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting
interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Bargh, J. A. (1989). Conditional automaticity: Varieties of automatic inﬂuence in social
perception and cognition. In J. Uleman & J .A. Bargh (Eds), Unintended thought
(pp. 3-51). New York: Guilford Press.

Baumeister, R. (1998). The self. In D.T. Gilbert, S.T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds),
Handbook of social psychology (4” ed., Vol. I), pp. 680-740. New York:
McGraw-Hill.

Baumeister, R. F., Hutton, D. G., & Tice, D. M. (1989). Cognitive processes during
deliberate self-presentation: How self—presenters alter and misinterpret the

behavior of their interaction partner. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
25, 59-78.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonal
attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 1 I 7,
497-529.

Baumeister, R. F., Twenge, J. M. & Nuss, C. K. (2002). Effects of social exclusion on
cognitive processes: Anticipated aloneness reduces intelligent thought. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 817-827.

Beilock, S. L., & Carr, T. H. (2001). On the fragility of skilled performance: What
governs choking under pressure? Journal of Experimental Psychology: General,
130, 701-725.

Biemat, M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2000). Stigma and stereotypes. In T. F. Heatherton, R. E.
Kleck, M. R. Hebl, J. G. Gull (Eds), The social psychology of stigma, pp. 88-125.

Bohan, J. S. (1996). Psychology and sexual orientation: Coming to terms. New York:
Routledge.

Braithwaite, D. O. (1991). “Just how much did the wheelchair cost?”: Management of
privacy boundaries by persons with disabilities. Western Journal of Speech
Communication, 55, 254-274.

Branscombe, N. R., & Ellemers, N. (1998). Coping with group-based discrimination:
Individualistic versus group-level strategies. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds),
Prejudice: The target ’s perspective, pp. 243-266.

Cahill, S. E., & Eggleston, R (1995). Reconsidering the stigma of physical disability:
Wheelchair use and public kindness. The Sociological Quarterly, 36, 681-698.

142

Cain, R. (1991). Stigma management and gay identity development. Social Work, 36,
67-73.

Chrobot-Mason, D., Button, S. B., & DiClementi, J. D. (2001). Sexual identity
management strategies: An exploration of antecedents and consequences. Sex
Roles, 45, 321-336.

Crocker, J ., Lutanen, R., Blaine, B., & Broadnax, S. (1994). Collective self-esteem and
psychological well-being among White, Black, and Asian college students.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 502-513.

Crocker, J ., Lutanen, R., Broadnax, S., & Blaine, B. (1999). Belief in US. government
conspiracies against Blacks: Powerlessness or system blame. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 20, 941-953.

Crocker, J. & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective
properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608-630.

Crocker, J ., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske,
G. Lindzey (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 4'” ed. ), pp. 504-
553. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Cross, W. E., Jr., & Strauss, L. (1998). The everyday functions of African American
identity. In J. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds), Prejudice: The target's perspective
(pp.267-279). San Diego, CA: Academic Press, Inc.

Deaux, K., & Ethier, K. (1998). Negotiating social identity. In J. Swim & C. Stangor
(Eds), Prejudice: The target's perspective (pp. 301-323). San Diego, CA:
Academic Press, Inc.

Depaulo, B. M. (1993). Nonverbal behavior and self-presentation. Psychological
Bulletin, 1 1 1, 203-243.

Derlega, V. J ., Metts, S., Petronio, S., & Margulis, S. T. (1993). Self-Disclosure.
Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Reducing contemporary
prejudice: Combating explicit and implicit bias at the individual and intergroup
level. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing Prejudice and Discrimination (pp. 137-163).
Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.

Fenigstein, A., Scheier, M. F., & Buss, A. H. (1975). Public and private self-

consciousness: Assessment and theory. Journal of Consulting and Clinical
Psychology, 43, 522-527.

143

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T.
F iske, G. Lindzey (Eds), The Handbook of Social Psychology (Vol. 2, 4‘” ed. ), pp.
357-411. New York: McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social Cognition. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill,
Inc.

Frable, D. E. S. (1993). Being and feeling unique: Statistical deviance and psychological
marginality. Journal of Personality, 61, 85-110.

Frable, D. E. S., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful:
Deviants in social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59,
140-149.

Frable, D. E. S, Wortrnan, C., & Joseph, J. (1997). Predicting self-esteem, well-being,
and distress in a cohort of gay men: The importance of cultural stigma, personal

visibility, community networks, and positive identity. Journal of Personality, 65,
599-624

Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of spoiled identity. New York,
NY: Simon & Schuster, Inc.

Gonsiorek, J. C. (1995). Gay male identities: Concepts and issues. In A. R. D’Augelli &
C. J. Patterson (Eds), Lesbian, gay, and bisexual identities over the lifespan:
Psychological perspectives (pp. 24-47). New York: Oxford Press.

Herek, G. (1999). AIDS and stigma. American Behavioral Scientist, 42, 1106-1116.
Herek, G., & Capitanio, J .P. (1997). AIDS stigma and contact with persons with AIDS:
The effects of personal and vicarious contact. Journal of Applied Social

Psychology, 27, 1-36.
Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of a scale for

measuring state self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60,
895-910.

Hmnphreys, L. (1972). Coming out: The sociology of homosexual liberation.
Englewood Cliffs, NJ: Prentice Hill.

J anda, L. (1996). The psychologists ' book of self-tests. New York, NY: Berkley.
Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D., & Scott, R. A. (1984).

Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: W. H.
Freeman & Co.

144

Jones, E. E., & Pittman, T. S. (1982). Toward a general theory of strategic self-

presentation. In J. Suls (Ed.), Psychological perspectives on the self (V 01. 1, pp.
231-262). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Jones, E. E., Rhodewalt, F., Berglas, S., & Skelton, J. A. (1981). Effects of strategic self-
presentation on subsequent self-esteem. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 41, 407-421.

Kaiser, C. R. & Miller, C. T. (2001). Reacting to impending discrimination:
Compensation for prejudice and attributions to discrimination. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1357-1367.

Kleck, R. E., & Stenta, A. (1980). Perceptions of the impact of negatively valued
physical characteristics on social interaction. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 39, 861-873.

Lennox, R. D., & Wolfe, R. N. (1984). Revision of the Self-Monitoring Scale. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 1349-1364.

Leary, M. R. (1996). Self-presentation: Impression management and interpersonal
behavior. New York: Westview Press.

Leary, M. R., & Kowalski, R. M. (1990). Impression management: A literature review
and two-component model. Psychological Bulletin, 107, 34-47.

Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (1999). Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and emotional

implications of concealement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77,
735-745.

McNaught, B. (1993). Gay issues in the workplace. New York, NY: St. Martin’s Press.

Miller, C. T., & Kaiser, C. R. (2001). A theoretical perspective on coping with stigma.
Journal of Social Issues, 5 7, 73-92.

Miller, C. T., & Myers, A. M. (1998). Compensating for prejudice: How heavyweight
people (and others) control outcomes despite prejudice. In J. K. Swim & C.
Stangor (Eds), Prejudice: The target ’s perspective, pp. 191-218.

Miller, C. T., Rothblum, E. D., Felicio, D., & Brand, P. (1995). Compensating for
stigma: Obese and nonobese women’s reactions to being visible. Personality and
Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1093-1106.

Morgan, L. M. (2002). The nature, antecedents, and consequences of social identity-
based impression management: Uncovering strategies for professional image
construction in cases of negative stereotyping. (Doctoral Dissertation, University
of Michigan).

145

Park, K. (2002). Stigma management among the voluntarily childless. Sociological
Perspectives, 45, 21 -45.

Paulhus, D. L., Graf, P., & Van Selst, M. (1989). Attentional load increases the positivity
of self-presentation. Social Cognition, 7, 389-400.

Pinel, E. C. (1999). Stigma consciousness: The psychological legacy of social
stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 114-128.

Pontari, B. A., & Schlenker, B. R. (2000). The inﬂuence of cognitive load on self-
presentation: Can cognitive busyness help as well as harm social performance?
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 1092-1108.

Quinn, D. M., Kahng, S. K., & Crocker, J. (2004). Discreditable: Stigma effects of
revealing a mental illness history on test performance. Personality and Social
Psychology Bulletin, 30, 803-815.

Rafaeli, A., Dutton, J ., Harquail, C. V., & Mackie-Lewis, S. (1997). Navigating by attire:
The use of dress by female administrative employees. Academy of Management
Journal, 40, 9-45.

Roberts, L. M., Settles, I. H., Jellison, W. A., & Carswell, M. (under review). Predictors
of the strategic enactment of racial and gender identity.

Santuzzi, A. M., & Ruscher, J. B. (2002). Stigma salience and paranoid social cognition:
Understanding variability in metaperceptions among individuals with recently-
acquired stigma. Social Cognition, 20, 171-197.

Sellers, R. M., Rowley, S. A. J., Chavous, T. M., Shelton, J. N., & Smith, M. A. (1997).
Multidimensional Inventory of Black Identity: A preliminary investigation of
reliability and construct validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
73, 1-11.

Sellers, R. M., Smith, M. A., Shelton, J. N., Rowley, S. A. J ., & Chavous, T. M. (1997).
Multidimensional model of racial identity: A reconceptualization of African
American racial identity. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 18-39.

Settles, I. H. (2004). When multiple identities interfere: The role of identity centrality.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 487-500.

Schlenker, B. R. (1980). Impression Management. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole
Publishing.

Schlenker, B. R., & Pontari, B. A. (2000). The strategic control of information:
Impression management and self-presentation in daily life. In A. Tesser, R. B.

146

Felson, & J. M. Suls (Eds), Psychological perspectives on self and identity (pp.
199-232). Washington DC: American Psychological Association.

Schlenker, B. R., & Weigold, M. F. (1990). Self-consciousness and self-presentation:
Being autonomous versus appearing autonomous. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 59, 820-828.

Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (1999). Covering up what can’t be seen: Concealable stigma
and mental control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 7 7, 474-486.

Shank, R., & Ableson, R. (1977). Scripts, plans, goals, and understanding. Hillsdale,
NJ: Erlbaum.

Stryker, S., & Serpe, R. T. (1994). Identity salience and psychological centrality:

Equivalent, overlapping, or complementary concepts? Social Psychology
Quarterly, 57, 16-35.

Taj fel, H., & Turner, J. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conﬂict. W. Austin, &
S. Worchel (Eds), The social psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 33-47).
Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.

Taub, D. E., Blinde, E. M., & Greer, K. R. (1999). Stigma management through
participation in sport and physical activity: Experiences of male college students
with physical disabilities. Human Relations, 52, 1469-1483.

Tice, D. M. (1992). Self-presentation and self-concept change: The looking-glass self is
also a magnifying glass. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 63, 435-
45 1 .

Tice, D. M., & Faber, J. (2001). Cognitive and motivational processes in self-
presentation. In J. P. Forgas, K. D. Williams, & L. Wheeler (Eds), The social
mind: Cognitive and motivational aspects of interpersonal behavior (pp. 139-
156). New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.

Troiden, R. R. (1993). The formation of homosexual identities. In Linda D. Garnets &
Douglas C. Kimmel (Eds), Psychological perspectives on lesbian and gay male

experiences: Between men—between women: Lesbian and gay studies (pp. 191-
217). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.

Walter, K. L., & Simoni, J. M. (1993). Lesbian and gay male group identity attitudes and

self-esteem: Implications for counseling. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 40,
94-99.

Watson, D., Clark, L. A., Tellegen, A. (1988). Development and validation of brief

measures of positive and negative affect: The PANAS scales. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 54, 1063-1070.

147

Woods, J. D. (1993). The corporate closet: The professional lives of gay men in
America. New York, NY: The Free Press.

Wegner, D. M., & Giuliamo, T. (1982). The forms of social awareness. In W. Ickes &

E. S. Knowles (Eds), Personality, roles, and social behavior (pp. 165-198). New
York, NY: Springer-Verlag.

148