Coping With Stigma in the Workplace: Understanding the Role of Threat Regulation, Supportive Factors, and Potential Hidden Costs

Abstract

Despite changes in their representation and visibility, there are still serious concerns about the inclusion and day-to-day workplace challenges various groups face (e.g., women, ethnic and cultural minorities, LGBTQ+, people as they age, and those dealing with physical or mental disabilities). Men are also underrepresented in specific work fields, in particular those in Health care, Elementary Education, and the Domestic sphere (HEED). Previous literature has shown that group stereotypes play an important role in maintaining these inequalities. We outline how insights from research into stigma, social identity, and self-regulation together increase our understanding of how targets are affected by and regulate negative stereotypes in the workplace. This approach starts from the basis that members of negatively stereotyped groups are not just passive recipients of negative attitudes, stereotypes, and behaviors but are active individuals pursuing multiple goals, such as goals for belonging and achievement. We argue that it is only by understanding stigma from the target’s perspective (e.g., how targets are affected and respond) that we can successfully address workplace inequality. Key in this understanding is that stereotypes, prejudice, and discrimination have taken on much more subtle forms, with consequences for the way members of stigmatized groups cope. These insights lead us to propose an approach to understanding barriers to workplace equality that highlights four key aspects: (1) the different (often subtle) potential triggers of identity threat in the workplace for members of stigmatized groups; (2) the ways in which members of stigmatized groups cope with these threats; (3) the role of supportive factors that mitigate potential threats and affect self-regulation; and (4) potential hidden costs for the self or others of what appears at first to be effective self-regulation. The focus on threats, coping, support, and potential hidden costs helps us understand why current diversity efforts are not always successful in increasing and maintaining members of stigmatized groups in organizations and provides insight into how we can aid efforts to effectively lower barriers to workplace equality.

Denial of gender discrimination is associated with better subjective well‐being among women: A system justification account

“…Much research suggests that engaging such distancing strategies can have negative repercussions for both the individual and their female colleagues (Sterk, Meeussen, & Van Laar, 2018;Van Laar et al, 2019;Veldman, Meeussen, Van Laar, & Phalet, 2017;Veldman, Van Laar, Meeussen, & Lo Bue, 2020). For instance, in a daily diary study of women in the Belgian military academy, women responded to gender threats by avoiding contact with other women and by attempting to downplay their gender, which in turn was related to lower subjective well-being and lower achievement motivation (Veldman et al, 2020;see also Bourguignon et al, 2020).…”

On the protective role of identification with a stigmatized identity: Promoting engagement and discouraging disengagement coping strategies

“…First, concerning affirmation of group identity, according to self-affirmation theory (Steele, 1988), the integrity of the individual can be maintained via actively affirming central aspects of their self-concept. Past research suggests that when people experience a threat to their collective self, affirming group identity has a protective function by reducing defensive responses and bolstering psychological resources to protect well-being (Derks, Van Laar, & Ellemers, 2006;Sherman et al, 2007;Spencer-Rodgers, Major, Forster, & Peng, 2016;Van Laar et al, 2019).…”

“…2 Self-group distancing might be measured by different indicators such as seeking to distance oneself physically and psychologically from one's stigmatized group, describing oneself through the typical stereotypical traits associated with the dominant group or by denying the existence of discrimination against one's group (Derks et al, 2015;Van Laar et al, 2019). In this article we will mainly focus on the first strategy, namely physically and psychologically distancing oneself from one's group.…”

Geographic patterns of implicit age bias and associations with state‐level health outcomes across the United States

“…Although psychologically distancing oneself from an old-age identity may serve self-protective functions in the short term and at the individual level (Heckhausen & Brim, 1997), it may reinforce the collective notion that being old is a bad thing, as is seen in other intergroup relations contexts (e.g., Branscombe, Fernández, Gómez, & Cronin, 2012;Derks et al, 2016;Ellemers, Doosje, & Spears, 2004;Van Laar et al, 2019). Prior work has demonstrated how subtle cues, contextual triggers, experimental primes, or direct reminders that make one's stigmatized group identity salient elicit self-group distancing responses as a way to cope with such stigma (Faniko, Ellemers, & Derks, 2016;Faniko, Ellemers, Derks, & Lorenzi-Cioldi, 2017).…”