External validity refers to the generalization of research findings, either from a sample to a larger population or to settings and populations other than those studied. While definitions vary, discussions generally agree that experiments are lower in external validity than other methodological approaches. Further, external validity is widely treated as an issue to be addressed through methodological procedures. When testing theories, all measures are indirect indicators of theoretical constructs, and no methodological procedures taken alone can produce external validity. External validity can be assessed through determining (1) the extent to which empirical measures accurately reflect theoretical constructs, (2) whether the research setting conforms to the scope of the theory under test, (3) our confidence that findings will repeat under identical conditions, (4) whether findings support the theory being tested, and (5) the confirmatory status of the theory under test. In these ways, external validity is foremost a theoretical issue and can only be addressed by an examination of the interplay between theory and methods.

No abstract

Stigma and status are the major concepts in two important sociological traditions that describe related processes but that have developed in isolation. Although both approaches have great promise for understanding and improving population health, this promise has not been realized. In this paper, we consider the applicability of status characteristics theory (SCT) to the problem of stigma with the goal of better understanding social systemic aspects of stigma and their health consequences. To this end, we identify common and divergent features of status and stigma processes. In both, labels that are differentially valued produce unequal outcomes in resources via culturally shared expectations associated with the labels; macro-level inequalities are enacted in micro-level interactions, which in turn reinforce macro-level inequalities; and status is a key variable. Status and stigma processes also differ: Higher- and lower-status states (e.g., male and female) are both considered normal, whereas stigmatized characteristics (e.g., mental illness) are not; interactions between status groups are guided by “social ordering schemas” that provide mutually agreed-upon hierarchies and interaction patterns (e.g., men assert themselves while women defer), whereas interactions between “normals” and stigmatized individuals are not so guided and consequently involve uncertainty and strain; and social rejection is key to stigma but not status processes. Our juxtaposition of status and stigma processes reveals close parallels between stigmatization and status processes that contribute to systematic stratification by major social groupings, such as race, gender, and SES. These parallels make salient that stigma is not only an interpersonal or intrapersonal process but also a macro-level process and raise the possibility of considering stigma as a dimension of social stratification. As such, stigma’s impact on health should be scrutinized with the same intensity as that of other more status-based bases of stratification such as SES, race and gender, whose health impacts have been firmly established.

The expected consequences of a score on an ability test can constrain individual performance. The authors predict that status processes, including status differences and the differences in rewards and costs that result, will produce differences in ability test scores between high-status and low-status individuals. In three controlled experiments, participants randomly assigned low status scored lower on a standard test of mental ability (the Raven Progressive Matrices) than did participants assigned high status. For both men and women, the difference in ability test score between low-status and high-status participants was about half a standard deviation. The results suggest the need to account for status differences in any attempt to measure mental ability accurately.

Mental illness labels are accompanied by devaluation and discrimination. We extend research on reactions to mental illness by utilizing a field experiment (N = 635) to test effects of mental illness labels on labor market discrimination. This study involved sending fictitious applications to job listings, some applications indicating a history of mental illness and some indicating a history of physical injury. In line with research indicating that mental illness leads to stigma, we predicted fewer callbacks to candidates with mental illness. We also predicted relatively fewer callbacks for applicants with mental illness when the jobs involved a greater likelihood for interpersonal contact with the employer. Results showed significant discrimination against applicants with mental illness, but did not indicate an effect of potential proximity to the employer. This contributes a valuable finding in a natural setting to research on labor market discrimination towards people with mental illness.

No abstract

In two experiments, we investigated the emotional reactions of group members in typical face-to-face interaction on different tasks. Results from both experiments supported the proposition that high-status group leaders would report more positive emotional reactions to group work than would non-leaders. We also found that women reported more positive emotion than men. Unexpectedly, we also found that women leaders were rated more likable than other group members while men leaders were not. As expected, leaders were rated as more competent and willing to contribute than were other group members. Less expected was the finding that women leaders were rated as competent and as willing to contribute as men leaders. While women leaders were not rated less competent than men leaders, members of groups led by a woman rated group performance lower than did members of groups led by a man. Group size did not affect the degree of positive emotion of group members or ratings of leaders, perhaps because differences in size among groups were small. Of methodological interest, experimentally induced status differences maintained themselves through several weeks of group interaction.

No abstract