An attributional analysis of reactions to stigmas.

Abstract

In two experiments, we examined the perceived controllability and stability of the causes of 10 stigmas. Guided by attribution theory, we also ascertained the affective reactions of pity and anger, helping judgments, and the efficacy of five intervention techniques. In the first study we found that physically based stigmas were perceived as onset-uncontrollable, and elicited pity, no anger, and judgments to help. On the other hand, mental-behavioral stigmas were perceived as onset-controllable, and elicited little pity, much anger, and judgments to neglect. In addition, physically based stigmas were perceived as stable, or irreversible, whereas mental-behavioral stigmas were generally considered unstable, or reversible. The perceived efficacy of disparate interventions was guided in part by beliefs about stigma stability. In the second study we manipulated perceptions of causal controllability. Attributional shifts resulted in changes in affective responses and behavioral judgments. However, attributional alteration was not equally possible for all the stigmas.

Predictors of HIV-related stigma among young people living with HIV.

“…The lack of significant findings for ethnicity and poverty, as opposed to gay/bisexual identity and bartering sex, suggests that stigmas that are likely to layer onto HIV-stigma are those that are associated with what are considered to be voluntary behaviors that facilitate attributions of blame for the stigmatized trait (Weiner et al, 1988). The sample size in this study may have also limited the ability to detect differences based on ethnicity or poverty, and also precluded testing moderating effects within subsamples of women, or heterosexual men, or injection drug users.…”

Stigma and prejudice: One animal or two?

“…For example, the reasoning behind exploitation/domination-based stigma and prejudice suggest that inter-group competition, derogatory stereotyping, and discrimination in allocation of resources may be particularly prominent here (Feagin 2000), and emotions of pity (Fiske et al 2002) or fear and hate (Kurzban and Leary 2001) may also be important. Attribution theory (Weiner et al 1988) and Kurzban and Leary's (2001) evolutionary model suggest that anger and punishment may be prominent in stigma and prejudice based on norm enforcement. Kurzban and Leary (2001) and evidence about aesthetics in stigma (e.g., Jones et al 1984) suggest that fear, disgust and avoidance may be prominent in stigma and prejudice based on disease avoidance.…”

Seeing overweight adults as babies: Physical cues and implications for stigmatization

“…Consequently, overweight and obesity arouse moderate levels of sympathy or pity. Yet, what is distinctive about the category of conditions to which overweight or obese persons tend to be assigned (and which includes unemployment, poverty, being on welfare, low socio‐economic status, and illnesses associated with high levels of personal responsibility) is that they arouse more irritation than the sick and handicapped, albeit to a lesser extent than individuals perceived as criminals (Dijker & Koomen, 2003, 2007; Weiner, Perry, & Magnusson, 1988). Furthermore, compared to active and relatively threatening deviant conditions, they arouse little fear.…”

“…In other words, one is dealing here with group members that are perceived to misuse others’ prosocial tendencies and engage in social parasitism. The mental representation of this category of deviant conditions does not refer to a problem of lacking competence, as some researchers (e.g., Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002) have suggested, neither of criminal or predatory forms of parasitism or cheating (although these conditions may be occasionally framed as such), but to a problem of lacking motivation (Brickman et al ., 1982), offset responsibility (Dijker & Koomen, 2003; Weiner et al ., 1988), violations of the ‘sick role’ (Parsons, 1951), or adults having immature or childlike attributes (LeVine & Campbell, 1972). Accordingly, the attitude towards the overweight and obese can be best characterized as one of ‘not taking others seriously’, frequently combined with both benevolent and malevolent forms of humour and laughter (Burmeister & Carels, 2014; Chou, Prestin, & Kunath, 2014; Yoo & Kim, 2012).…”

“…The main conclusion drawn from this research is that stigmatization is caused by attributing increased fatness to behaviour (eating, lack of activity) that is under personal control, resulting in perceptions of laziness and weakness of character, together with responses of anger, blame, and social rejection (e.g., Crandall, 1994; Dijker & Koomen, 2003; Puhl & Heuer, 2009; Weiner et al ., 1988). …”