A Peek Inside the Targets' Toolbox: How Stigmatized Targets Deflect Discrimination by Invoking a Common Identity

Abstract

In an effort to identify effective strategies for reducing prejudice, this research tested whether stigmatized individuals can evoke a common identity to deflect discrimination. In an initial survey, gay/lesbian/bisexual participants reported a preference for evoking common identity in intergroup interactions. In two experiments, straight male perceivers in a managerial role-playing paradigm were more likely to select a gay man for an interview if he had primed a common identity. Evoking a common identity did not similarly benefit straight candidates. Findings suggest that integrating prejudice reduction and persuasion research can identify strategies that empower targets to effectively cope with prejudice.

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

This research was funded by a National Science Foundation grant (BCS-0548405) awarded to the first and last authors.

Notes

^† p < .10. *p < .05. **p < .01. ***p < .001.

¹This study also included a manipulation of accountability in which participants thought either that the interview decision rested solely with them or that they would give anonymous advice to a manager. We thought participants would exhibit more bias when they felt less accountable, but this manipulation had no main or interactive effects.

²This study also included a manipulation of accountability in which participants thought either that the interview decision rested solely with them or that they would give anonymous advice to a manager. We thought participants would exhibit more bias when they felt less accountable, but this manipulation had no main or interactive effects.

³A pilot study demonstrated that the common identity and selfpromotion statements did not significantly differ in perceived competence, F(1, 29) = 3.20, p < .05, or likeability, F(1, 29) = .07, p < .10. Participants in these two conditions did not differ in sexual prejudice (Herek, 1988), and this measure was not a significant covariate in analyses (all ps < .10).

⁴This percentage might fall short of 100% due to a general hesitance to make mention of someone's stigmatized status (Norton, Sommers, Apfelbaum, Pura, & Ariely, 2006).