Poster presented at the 2016 Society for Personality and Social Psychology Conference in San Diego, CA

1. Participants
•245 participants were recruited using Amazon Mechanical Turk. They
were randomly assigned to the experimental group (N=117) and the
control group (N=128).
• Participants were compensated $0.75 USD for their time, which is a
typical rate (Buhrmester, Kwang, & Gosling, 2011).
Measures
• Group identification – A modified version of the Disability
Identification Scale (DIS; Nario-Redmond, Noel, & Fern, 2012), e.g.
“Being a part of the LGB community is central to who I am.”
• Self-stigma – A modified version of Internal Homophobia Scale -
Revised (IHS-R; Herek, Gillis, & Cogan, 2009), e.g. “I wish I didn’t
have a psychological condition.”
• Mood – The Positive and Negative Affect Schedule Short Form
(PANAS-SF) (Watson, Clark, & Tellegen, 1988), which asks
participants to rate how they are currently feeling on emotions such as
anger and optimism.
Interventions
Experimental. Participants were instructed to either choose from a
provided list or to identify a celebrity that shared their identification,
and write at least 500 words about positive characteristics that person
shares with them.
Control. Those in the control condition were instructed to describe
their bedroom in at least 500 words. .
Stereotype Threat Induction. For the stereotype threat induction,
received by all participants after their assigned intervention,
participants were reminded of a negative stereotype about their group.
Mental Health: That people with psychological conditions are
naturally violent and unable to control themselves
LGB: That LGB people are exceptionally promiscuous and more
likely to acquire STDs.
•They were asked to write a minimum of 500 words about how this
perception of them and others like them made them feel.
• No significant differences between the two types of CSI’s (LGB and
mental illness) so the data was collapsed.
• The two groups did not significantly differ in their post-intervention
identification, though their post-threat identification was significantly
different (F[1,242]=4.64, p<.05), with the experimental group (M=3.98,
SD=1.84) having significantly lower identification than the control
group (M=4.10, SD=1.75).
• Post-intervention positive affect was significantly higher among the
experimental group (M=2.79, SD=0.96) than the control group
(M=2.61, SD=0.97; F[1,242]=7.44, p<.01), and post-threat positive
affect was significantly lower among the experimental group(M=2.57,
SD=0.95) compared to the control group (M=2.57, SD=0.97;
F[1,242]=7.88, p<.01).
• Post-intervention negative affect (Figure 1) was significantly lower
among the experimental group (M=1.39, SD=0.66) compared to the
control group (M=1.66, SD=0.78; F[1,242]=5.89, p<.05). However,
post-threat negative affect, once adjusted means are taken into
consideration, was significantly lower for the control group (M=1.54,
SE=0.04) than the experimental group (M=1.66, SE=0.04)
• For negative affect, there is concern for ceiling affects in the control
group and of randomization error due to the conditions being different
at baseline.
• The two groups were not significantly different in their self-stigma
following the intervention, nor following the stereotype threat
condition.
Increasing Group Identification for Individuals with Concealable Stigmatized Identities
Angela Cobb, Acacia C. Parks, Ph.D., and Michelle Nario-Redmond, Ph.D.
Hiram College, Hiram, OH
Increasing Group Identification for Individuals with Concealable Stigmatized Identities
Angela Cobb, Acacia C. Parks, Ph.D., and Michelle Nario-Redmond, Ph.D.
Hiram College, Hiram, OH
• Identification with one’s social group is an important predictor of
internal stigma (Corrigan and Watson, 2002).
• When using group-as-target identity threat, role model interventions
are more effective interventions (Shapiro, Williams, & Hambarchyan,
2015). at decreasing identity threat and increasing identification than
self-affirmation
–Modified the identity intervention used by Shapiro, Williams, and
Hambarchyan (2015), which consisted of a reading passage describing
achievements and actions of an African-American individual that directly
contradict stereotypes about African-Americans, to be writing–based
intervention for people with concealable stigmatized identities (CSI’s).
• CSI’s are identities that, despite not being outwardly visible, carry
social stigma for those known to have them,. Research investigating
identity interventions for CSI’s are rare, and people with CSI’s
(mental illness and LGB) were the focus of the present study.
Hypotheses
• Those who received the intervention would have higher positive
affect and lower negative affect following the intervention.
• Once these people were then exposed to a stereotype threat, those who
received that intervention beforehand would have lower negative
affect, higher positive affect, and lower self-stigma.
Introduction
Summary:
•Post-intervention
– We hypothesized that experimental group would have stronger
identification, higher positive affect, and lower negative affect than
those in the control group
– The intervention was effective in increasing positive affect and
decreasing negative affect, though it is unclear what the
mechanism for this change was, due to identification not being
significantly affected.
Post-threat
– We hypothesized that, in the face of stereotype threat,
experimental condition would have higher identification and
positive affect, as well as lower self-stigma and negative affect,
than those in the control group following the stereotype threat
condition.
– We found that those in the experimental group experienced lower
self-stigma but also lower identification (though not significant)
and lower positive affect as well as higher negative affect when
compared to the control group.
Limitations:
Potential measurement issues
• The scales for identification and self-stigma were modified
versions of other scales.
• May have not been sensitive to change in the short-term
Theoretical
• Group identification is a core part of someone’s self-concept, and
thus may be resistant to immediate adjustment following an
intervention
• Intervention may have made group identity more salient rather
than modifying it
Future Directions:
• To disentangle if identification interventions are best utilized prior
to stereotype threat exposure (as done in this study) or after
exposure.
• Examine how identification elevated through an intervention
affects constructs related to identification, such as self-esteem
(Crabtree, Haslam, Postmes, and Haslam, 2010) and self-efficacy
(Corrigan & Watson, 2002).
Method
Results
Discussion
References
Procedures
•Participants first reported demographics, then completed baseline
measures of mood and group identification (PANAS-SF and DIS).
•They received their randomly assigned intervention
•They then completed post-intervention measures (PANAS-SF and
DIS), as well as a measure internal stigma (IHS-R).
•They experienced the Stereotype Threat Induction
•They completed post-threat measures (PANAS-SF, DIS, and IHS-R).
Buhrmester, M., Kwang, T., & Gosling, S. D. (2011). Amazon's mechanical turk: A new source of inexpensive,
yet high-quality, data?, Perspectives On Psychological Science, 6(1), 3-5.
doi:10.1177/1745691610393980.
Corrigan, P. W., & Watson, A. C. (2002). The paradox of self-stigma and mental illness. Clinical Psychology:
Science and Practice, 9(1), 35:53-35:53. doi:10.1093/clipsy/9.1.35
Crabtree, J. W., Haslam, S. A., Postmes, T., & Haslam, C. (2010). Mental health support groups, stigma, and
self-esteem: Positive and negative implications of group identification. Journal of Social Issues, 66(3),
553-569. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2010.01662.x
Herek, G. M., Gillis, J. R., & Cogan, J. C. (2009). Internalized stigma among sexual minority adults: Insights
from a social psychological perspective. Journal of Counseling Psychology, 56(1), 32-43. doi:
10.1037/a0014672
Nario-Redmond, M. R., Noel, J. G., & Fern, E. (2013). Redefining disability, re-imagining the self: Disability
identification predicts self-esteem and strategic responses to stigma. Self and Identity, 12(5), 468-488.
doi:10.1080/15298868.2012.681118
Shapiro, J. R., Williams, A. M., & Hambarchyan, M. (2013). Are all interventions created equal? A multi-threat
approach to tailoring stereotype threat interventions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
104(2), 277-288. doi:10.1037/a0030461
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(6), 1063.
• Figure 1. Changes in negative affect over the course of the study, sorted by condition.
d= 0.05
d= - 0.21
d= 0.01
d= - 0.06