Stigmatized people have a vast array of responses to stressors resulting from their devalued social status, including emotional, cognitive, biological, and behavioral responses. This article uses existing theory and research on general stress and coping responses to describe responses to stigma-related stressors and to discuss the adaptiveness of these responses.

Recent research indicates that stigmatized people may avoid claims of discrimination because such attributions are costly in terms of perceived control over outcomes and social self-esteem. The authors hypothesized that minimization of discrimination also occurs in part because negative social costs accompany attributions to discrimination. In Experiment 1, an African American who attributed a failing test grade to discrimination was perceived as a complainer and was less favorably evaluated in general than was an African American who attributed his failure to the quality of his test answers. This overall devaluation occurred regardless of the objective likelihood that discrimination occurred. Experiment 2 replicated these findings and revealed that this devaluation generally occurred only when the target made discrimination attributions, not when he made other external attributions. The social costs of making attributions to discrimination may prevent stigmatized people from confronting the discrimination they face in their daily lives.

In 3 studies, the authors tested the hypothesis that discrimination targets' worldview moderates the impact of perceived discrimination on self-esteem among devalued groups. In Study 1, perceiving discrimination against the ingroup was negatively associated with self-esteem among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview (e.g., believed that individuals of any group can get ahead in America and that success stems from hard work) but was positively associated with self-esteem among those who rejected this worldview. Study 2 showed that exposure to discrimination against their ingroup (vs. a non-self-relevant group) led to lower self-esteem, greater feelings of personal vulnerability, and ingroup blame among Latino Americans who endorsed a meritocracy worldview but to higher selfesteem and decreased ingroup blame among Latino Americans who rejected it. Study 3 showed that compared with women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is pervasive, women informed that prejudice against their ingroup is rare had higher self-esteem if they endorsed a meritocracy worldview but lower self-esteem if they rejected this worldview. Findings support the idea that perceiving discrimination against one's ingroup threatens the worldview of individuals who believe that status in society is earned but confirms the worldview of individuals who do not.

This research tests the hypothesis that the presence (vs. absence) of organizational diversity structures causes high-status group members (Whites, men) to perceive organizations with diversity structures as procedurally fairer environments for underrepresented groups (racial minorities, women), even when it is clear that underrepresented groups have been unfairly disadvantaged within these organizations. Furthermore, this illusory sense of fairness derived from the mere presence of diversity structures causes high-status group members to legitimize the status quo by becoming less sensitive to discrimination targeted at underrepresented groups and reacting more harshly toward underrepresented group members who claim discrimination. Six experiments support these hypotheses in designs using 4 types of diversity structures (diversity policies, diversity training, diversity awards, idiosyncratically generated diversity structures from participants' own organizations) among 2 high-status groups in tests involving several types of discrimination (discriminatory promotion practices, adverse impact in hiring, wage discrimination). Implications of these experiments for organizational diversity and employment discrimination law are discussed.

This study tested the hypothesis that awareness of the possibility of being a target of discrimination can provide individuals with a means of self-esteem protection when they are faced with negative outcomes. Men and women contemplated being rejected from a course due to sexism, personal deservingness, or an exclusively external cause. Regardless of gender, participants in the sexism condition blamed themselves less, attributed the rejection less to internal causes, and anticipated feeling less depressed than those in the personal deservingness condition. Furthermore, the more participants discounted the rejection--blamed it more on discrimination than themselves--the less depressed emotions they anticipated feeling. Discounting did not buffer participants from feeling hostility or anxiety. These findings advance our understanding of when and why attributions to prejudice protect emotional well-being.

Across 6 studies, Whites expressed more negative attitudes toward strongly identified racial minorities than toward weakly identified minorities. Whites who personally endorsed worldviews that legitimize the status hierarchy were particularly likely to express negative attitudes toward strongly identified minorities relative to weakly identified minorities, whereas Whites who personally rejected status-legitimizing worldviews displayed the opposite pattern. In addition, Whites' biases against strongly identified minorities dissipated when strongly identified minorities expressed strong endorsement of statuslegitimizing worldviews. These studies suggest that Whites do not distribute their prejudicial attitudes equally among all members of minority groups and that some subsets of minorities (the strongly identified) might bear the brunt of racial prejudice.

No abstract

Consider recent actions by two politicians. The first campaigned for women to have equal representation in the government and pursued equal pay for women in the workplace. The second made campaign promises to reduce the gender gap in pay and used the first bill signing as a new leader to enact a law making it easier for women to recoup wages lost as a result of sexism. These politicians share something in common; they are both men (the first is French President Francois Hollande and the second is U.S. President Barack Obama). In advocating on behalf of women, Hollande and Obama each took on the role of an ally, or someone who aligns with a disadvantaged group by recognizing the need for further progress in the fight for equal rights. Allies work alongside a disadvantaged group in the search for justice. In this article, we explore the role of men who become allies by confronting sexism. We examine factors that lead men to take on the ally role and explore the effectiveness of men in this role. We also offer suggestions