Although several psychological theories predict that members of stigmatized groups should have low global self-esteem, empirical research typically does not support this prediction. It is proposed here that this discrepancy may be explained by considering the ways in which membership in a stigmatized group may protect the self-concept It is proposed that members of stigmatized groups may (a) attribute negative feedback to prejudice against their group, (b) compare their outcomes with those of the ingroup, rather than with the relatively advantaged outgroup, and (c) selectively devalue those dimensions on which their group fares poorly and value those dimensions on which their group excels. Evidence for each of these processes and their consequences for self-esteem and motivation is reviewed. Factors that moderate the use of these strategies and implications of this analysis for treatment of stigmas are also discussed. For more than three decades, social psychological research on prejudice, stereotyping, and discrimination has examined both the content of stereotypes about a variety of social groups and the effects of these stereotypes on behavior toward members of those groups. Accumulated evidence has shown that many social groups or categories of people are stigmatized in our society. People hold generally negative stereotypes about such diverse groups as Blacks

This chapter addresses the psychological effects of social stigma. Stigma directly affects the stigmatized via mechanisms of discrimination, expectancy confirmation, and automatic stereotype activation, and indirectly via threats to personal and social identity. We review and organize recent theory and empirical research within an identity threat model of stigma. This model posits that situational cues, collective representations of one's stigma status, and personal beliefs and motives shape appraisals of the significance of stigma-relevant situations for well-being. Identity threat results when stigma-relevant stressors are appraised as potentially harmful to one's social identity and as exceeding one's coping resources. Identity threat creates involuntary stress responses and motivates attempts at threat reduction through coping strategies. Stress responses and coping efforts affect important outcomes such as self-esteem, academic achievement, and health. Identity threat perspectives help to explain the tremendous variability across people, groups, and situations in responses to stigma.

A model that describes conditions influencing the display of gender-related behavior is presented as a supplement to existent models of sex differences. Whereas many previous models stress the importance of distal factors, our model emphasizes the degree to which gender-related behavior is variable, proximally caused, and context dependent. More specifically, we propose that gender-related behaviore are influenced by the expectations of perceivers, self-systems of the target, and situational cues. This model of gender-related behavior builds on theory and data in the areas of (a) expectancy confirmation processes and (b) self-verification and self-presentation strategies. Support for the model is presented, and suggestions are offered for its future development.Are men and women different, and if so, why? These seemingly simple questions have proved remarkably resistant to satisfactory answers, despite a long tradition of attempts. Investigators of some eras have emphasized differences between women and men, whereas those of other eras have argued for the essential similarity of the sexes. For example, in recent years one can observe a minimization of sex differences in the benchmark work of Maccoby and Jacklin (1974) and a reendorsement of sex differences in the subsequent work of Gilligan (1982), Eagly (1987), and others. Proponents of both views have had problems. Those who predict stable sex differences have had trouble accounting for the often limited ability of sex to predict behavior and for a variability that sometimes appears random.The order of authorship for this article was determined alphabetically and hence is arbitrary. The contributions of both authors are equivalent and inseparable.Portions of this article were developed while Kay Deaux was a Fellow at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences, where support was provided in part by the John D. and Catherine T. McArthur Foundation. Additional support was provided by Grants BNS-8217313 and BNS-8604993 from the National Science Foundation to Kay Deaux.Many people have contributed to our thinking in this article. A preliminary version of the model was presented at the Nags Head Conference on Sex and Gender in May 198S, and we thank the members of that conference for their feedback. The members of the Self, Cognition, and Affect Project at the Center for Advanced Study in the Behavioral Sciences provided valuable input and a stimulating context. In addition, we thank the following people for their comments on earlier versions of this article: Richard Ashmore, Nyla Branscombe, Jennifer Crocker, John Darley, Frances Del Boca, Alice Eagly, Russ Fazio, Sam Glucksberg, Tory Higgins, Bill Martin, and Janet Spence.Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kay Deaux, who is now at City University of New York, Graduate Center, Box 325, 33 West 42 Street, New York, New York 10036-8099 or to Brenda Major, Department of Psychology, Park Hall, State University of New York at Buffalo, Amherst, New York 14260.Those who argue that ...

Two experiments investigated the hypothesis that the stigmatized can protect their self-esteem by attributing negative feedback to prejudice. Fifty-nine women participated in the 1st experiment. Women who received negative feedback from a prejudiced evaluator attributed the feedback to his prejudice and reported less depressed affect than women who received negative feedback from a nonprejudiced evaluator. In the 2nd experiment, 38 Black and 45 White students received interpersonal feedback from a White evaluator, who cither could see them or could not. Compared with Whites, Blacks were more likely to attribute negative feedback to prejudice than positive feedback and were more likely to attribute both types of feedback to prejudice when they could be seen by the other student. Being seen by the evaluator buffered the self-esteem of Blacks from negative feedback but hurt the self-esteem of Blacks who received positive feedback.A great deal of research conducted over the past decades has demonstrated that many social groups are stigmatized in American society. For example, people hold negative stereotypes

No abstract