Concealing to Belong, Revealing to be Known: Classification Expectations and Self-threats Among...

This article was downloaded by: [University of South Florida]On: 13 February 2012, At: 08:26Publisher: Psychology PressInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Self and IdentityPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psai20

Concealing to Belong, Revealing to beKnown: Classification Expectationsand Self-threats Among Persons withConcealable StigmasJennifer K. Bosson a , Jonathan R. Weaver a & Jennifer L. Prewitt-Freilino ba The University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USAb The Rhode Island School of Design, Providence Rhode Island, USA

Available online: 24 May 2011

To cite this article: Jennifer K. Bosson, Jonathan R. Weaver & Jennifer L. Prewitt-Freilino (2012):Concealing to Belong, Revealing to be Known: Classification Expectations and Self-threats AmongPersons with Concealable Stigmas, Self and Identity, 11:1, 114-135

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.513508

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Full terms and conditions of use: http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden.

The publisher does not give any warranty express or implied or make any representationthat the contents will be complete or accurate or up to date. The accuracy of anyinstructions, formulae, and drug doses should be independently verified with primarysources. The publisher shall not be liable for any loss, actions, claims, proceedings,demand, or costs or damages whatsoever or howsoever caused arising directly orindirectly in connection with or arising out of the use of this material.

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/psai20

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.513508

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Concealing to Belong, Revealing to be Known:

Classification Expectations and Self-threats Among

Persons with Concealable Stigmas

JENNIFER K. BOSSONJONATHAN R. WEAVER

The University of South Florida, Tampa, Florida, USA

JENNIFER L. PREWITT-FREILINO

The Rhode Island School of Design, Providence Rhode Island, USA

Whereas a large body of research examines the interpersonal stressors associatedwith revealing a stigmatized identity to others, comparatively little work documentsthe intrapsychic stressors associated with concealing a stigmatized identity fromothers. In two studies of persons with concealable stigmas (nerds in Study 1, gaymen and lesbians in Study 2), we found support for a model in which behaviors thatreveal a stigmatized identity to others lead to expectations of accurate classificationas stigmatized, and behaviors that conceal a stigmatized identity lead toexpectations of misclassification as nonstigmatized. In turn, expectations ofaccurate classification threaten stigmatized people’s need for belonging (positivesocial connections), and expectations of misclassification threaten their need forcoherence (feedback that confirms their stable self-views).

Keywords: Stigma; Social identity; Self-threats; Belonging; Coherence.

I don’t want anyone to know I’m gay. It’s kind of hard to explain. I want to be gay because Ifeel that’s what I am, but I don’t want anyone to know . . . . There are so many hateful peopleout there.

(Tom B., quoted in Rhoads, 1994, p. 63).

As Tom’s struggle suggests, people with concealable stigmas may find themselves‘‘damned if they do, damned if they don’t’’ when it comes to decisions aboutrevealing their stigmatized identity to others. Should they reveal, they mayexperience threats to their social status, relationships, or even physical safety;should they conceal, they cannot be known for themselves, for who they really are.

Received 8 February 2010; accepted 23 July 2010; first published online 2 February 2011.

Correspondence should be addressed to: Jennifer K. Bosson, Department of Psychology, University

of South Florida, 4202 E. Fowler Ave., PCD 4118G, Tampa, FL 33620, USA. E-mail: jbosson@

cas.usf.edu

Self and Identity, 11: 114–135, 2012

http://www.psypress.com/sai

ISSN: 1529-8868 print/1529-8876 online

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/15298868.2010.513508

� 2012 Psychology Press, an imprint of the Taylor & Francis Group, an Informa business

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Thus far, most work on the psychological stressors associated with concealablestigmas focuses on the former type of threat, or threats to belonging. Such threatsinclude the risk of rejection, punishment, ostracism, or abuse that may occur shouldothers discover one’s stigmatized status (Goffman, 1963; Quinn, 2006). Here, weexamine as well the latter type of threat, or threats to psychological coherence(Swann, Rentfrow, & Guinn, 2003). Threats to coherence include the risk of beingseen erroneously, or of being misclassified into the wrong social group, should othersremain unaware of one’s true, stigmatized identity. Drawing on self-verificationtheory (Swann, 1990) as well as recent work on identity misclassification (Bosson,Prewitt-Freilino, & Taylor, 2005), we propose and test a behavior-expectation-threatmodel in which actors’ expectations of being classified as either stigmatized ornonstigmatized, on the basis of identity relevant behaviors, predict threats tobelonging or coherence, respectively. We begin with a brief summary of research onthe stressors associated with concealable stigmas.

Concealable Stigmas and Self-threats

Research has documented some of the unique stressors associated with possessinga concealable stigma. In the interpersonal domain, for example, individuals withconcealable stigmas face the difficult decision of when, and to whom, to disclosetheir stigmatized identity (e.g., Goffman, 1963; Quinn, 2006). Should theymisjudge, those with concealable stigmas may make an unfavorable impression onothers (Jones & Gordon, 1972), or receive unsupportive responses fromconfidantes (Major et al., 1990). When around others who do not know of theirstigmatized status, people with concealable stigmas experience heightenedconcerns about being discovered and rejected (e.g., Derlega, Winstead, Green,Serovich, & Elwood, 2002), and such concerns are associated with increasedanxiety, depression, and illness symptoms (Quinn & Chaudoir, 2009). Unfortu-nately, these concerns may be well founded: The consequences of discovery by the‘‘wrong person’’ range from ridicule, discrimination, and ostracism, to abuse andeven violence (e.g., Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998; Goffman, 1963; Herek &Berrill, 1992; Jones et al., 1984). Although these punishments cover a wide rangeof experiences, they share a common element in that they all challenge people’sfundamental need for belongingness and positive social connections with others(Baumeister & Leary, 1995). In short, individuals with concealable stigmas face amultitude of interpersonal threats that are no less daunting than those faced bypersons with conspicuous stigmas.

We suggest that, in addition to these interpersonal threats, people withconcealable stigmas also face the intrapsychic threat of being perceivederroneously by others. To our knowledge, however, no empirical work hasexamined directly the threats to self that arise when people with concealablestigmas are viewed erroneously (i.e., when their stigmatized identity goesunrecognized). Instead, past research on the intrapsychic consequences ofconcealable stigmas tends to reflect one of two themes. First, some researchersexamine the mental preoccupation and intrusive thoughts that plague individualswho hide a stigmatized status (e.g., Frable, Blackstone, & Scherbaum, 1990;Major & Gramzow, 1999; Smart & Wegner, 2000). This work indicates that thecognitive burden of keeping an identity secret can produce negative consequencessuch as depression and anxiety (Beals, Peplau, & Gable, 2009; Major &Gramzow, 1999). Second, another body of research suggests that keeping an

Concealable Stigmas and Self-threats 115

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

identity secret from others can interfere with the development of a positiveidentity (Frable, Wortman, & Joseph, 1997), and lead to lower self-esteem(Frable, Platt, & Hoey, 1998) or feelings of guilt and fraudulence (Granfield,1991). Although the present theorizing is consistent with both of these themes,the point of departure for the current work is our assumption that beingperceived erroneously—whether or not one intentionally conceals a stigmatizedidentity—constitutes a self-threat in itself.

This assumption derives from research on self-verification theory, whichdemonstrates that people have a powerful need for appraisals that verify theirchronic, firmly held identities, even if these identities are negative or undesirable(Swann, 1990; Swann & Bosson, 2008). The need for identity-consistentappraisals presumably reflects the fundamental human need for regularity,predictability, and a sense that the world fits with one’s expectations (e.g.,Guidano & Liotti, 1983; Popper, 1963). Because the self-concept is so central topeople’s subjective experiences, it provides the foundation for this sense ofcoherence (Lecky, 1945; Swann, 1990). Inconsistent appraisals are thus threaten-ing because they challenge the epistemic need to know the self, as well as thepragmatic need to control one’s social interactions (Swann, Stein-Seroussi, &Giesler, 1992).

From this perspective, individuals with concealable stigmas should undergothreats to psychological coherence when they expect others to misperceive them asnonstigmatized. Although people vary in the extent to which they value and deriveself-esteem from stigmatized identities (e.g., Luhtanen & Crocker, 1992), manynonetheless perceive such identities as core, defining features of the self. To beperceived authentically thus requires that others recognize and acknowledge one’sstigma. Note that this logic is also consistent with theories of optimal functioning,which emphasize the importance of autonomy and self-determination forpsychological well-being (Deci & Ryan, 1985; Rogers, 1961; Ryan & Deci, 2000;Ryff, 1989). If people with concealable stigmas sacrifice their need to be themselvesin favor of their need to be accepted—by allowing their stigmatized identity toremain hidden—they may be chasing externally imposed standards of worth. Indoing so, they may forfeit the need to function with autonomy and agency. In theshort term, failure to receive acknowledgement of a stigmatized identity that is highin certainty or importance may produce feelings of anxiety, confusion, ordisorientation (Swann et al., 2003). Ultimately, stigmatized individuals may opt toleave non-verifying relationships and environments in search of people and placesthat better nourish the need for coherence (e.g., Swann & Pelham, 2002), and thatpromote more autonomous functioning (Ryan & Deci, 2000).

To summarize, people with concealable stigmas may find themselves caughtregularly between meeting their needs for belonging and coherence. By revealingtheir stigma to others, they invite interpersonal punishments; by concealing theirstigma from others, they invite false appraisals that conflict with their stableidentities. In the investigations described here, we examined the manner in whichthese competing self-threats arise during identity relevant behaviors.

The Behavior-Expectation-Threat Model

Although threats to belonging and coherence may be chronically salient for somepersons with concealable stigmas, we suggest that these threats will becomeparticularly salient in situations in which the stigmatized identity is relevant (e.g.,

116 J. K. Bosson et al.

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Pachankis, 2007). More specifically, threats to belonging or coherence should arisewhen actors perform identity-based behaviors in public. Identity-based behaviors areactions that are commonly seen as diagnostic of membership in a given social group(Oyserman, Brickman, Bybee, & Celious, 2006; Oyserman, Fryberg, & Yoder, 2007).Thus, the enactment of an identity-based behavior communicates (accurately orinaccurately) to onlookers that one belongs to a particular social group. Whenpeople with concealable stigmas perform identity-based behaviors that are diagnosticof their stigmatized status, they can expect to reveal their stigma to others; when theyperform identity-based behaviors that are diagnostic of membership in anonstigmatized group, they can expect to conceal their stigma from others. Forexample, behaviors that reveal one’s homosexuality to others (e.g., holding handswith a same-sex person) should activate expectations of correct classification as‘‘gay,’’ whereas behaviors that conceal one’s homosexuality from others (e.g.,holding hands with an other-sex person) should activate expectations ofmisclassification as ‘‘straight.’’ In turn, expectations of classification as stigmatizedelicit threats to belonging, whereas expectations of misclassification as nonstigma-tized elicit threats to coherence.

Much of the groundwork for this model was established in work on identitymisclassification. This research revealed that, when people enact behaviors that arediagnostic of membership in a given social group, they expect others to classify theminto that group. Such expectations then elicit anxious feelings of discomfort if thegroup into which actors expect to get classified is a stigmatized one. For example,when heterosexual men visualized or performed stereotypically feminine behaviors,they expected viewers to misclassify them as gay, and accordingly experienced self-conscious discomfort (Bosson et al., 2005; Bosson, Taylor, & Prewitt-Freilino, 2006;Prewitt-Freilino & Bosson, 2008). Similarly, when women visualized behaviors thatwere diagnostic of membership in the groups ‘‘nerds,’’ ‘‘hippies,’’ and ‘‘lesbians,’’their expectations of misclassification into these groups predicted heighteneddiscomfort (Bosson et al., 2005). Importantly, when actors were not concernedabout being misclassified—because they asserted their nonstigmatized status toobservers—they enjoyed and benefited from performing these same behaviors(Bosson et al., 2005, Studies 3 and 4).

Although most of this past work focused on the role of classification expectationsin driving nonstigmatized actors’ threat reactions, one set of findings is relevant here.Women reported increases in discomfort to the extent that they expected others toclassify them as a nerd during nerd-like behaviors, but they also reported decreasesin discomfort during these same behaviors to the extent that they personallyidentified as a nerd (Bosson et al., 2005, Study 2). Thus, while expectations ofclassification into the group ‘‘nerds’’ elicited feelings of threat for all respondents,women who identified more strongly as a nerd also felt more comfortable withbehaviors that might reveal their nerd status to others. This latter finding isconsistent with our assumption that identity consistent appraisals from others meetpeople’s need for coherence, even if the identity for which people receive verificationand acknowledgement is a stigmatized one.

Note, however, that Bosson et al. (2005) measured people’s feelings of generaldiscomfort during identity-based behaviors, rather than measuring threats tobelonging and coherence separately. In the current investigation, we remedy thisshortcoming of past work, and test the generalizability of our analysis, by examiningthe links between classification expectations and self-threats among people with verydifferent types of concealable stigmas: nerds, and gay men and lesbians.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Overview of Research

The studies reported here test a model in which public behaviors that are relevant toa stigmatized identity activate different sets of cognitions and self-threats, dependingon whether they reveal or conceal the stigma. Identity-based behaviors that reveal astigmatized identity should elicit expectations of accurate classification, as well asthreats to belonging (e.g., challenges to one’s social status and relationships).Identity-based behaviors that conceal a stigmatized identity should elicit expecta-tions of misclassification, as well as threats to coherence (e.g., challenges to one’sstable self-views). We focused on nerds in Study 1 to replicate and extend pastfindings (Bosson et al., 2005), and gay men and lesbians in Study 2 to test our ideasamong persons with a more prototypical concealable stigma.

We tested the following hypotheses. For persons with a concealable stigma: (1)identity-based behaviors that reveal the stigma should elicit expectations of correctclassification as stigmatized, whereas identity-based behaviors that conceal thestigma should elicit expectations of misclassification as nonstigmatized; (2)expectations of correct classification should more strongly predict threats tobelonging than coherence; and (3) expectations of misclassification should morestrongly predict threats to coherence than belonging.

Study 1

Study 1 was a replication and extension of Bosson et al.’s (2005) ‘‘nerd’’ study.Participants indicated the extent to which they identified as a nerd, and then vividlyimagined themselves performing several behaviors that are stereotypical of nerds.After imagining each behavior, participants rated threats to belonging andcoherence, estimated the likelihood that strangers who observed their behaviorwould classify them as a nerd, and rated the likelihood that they would actuallyperform the behaviors. We treated this last variable (likelihood) as a control, toaccount for differences in the ease with which people could envision themselvesperforming the hypothetical acts.

Admittedly, the structural features of the group ‘‘nerds’’ were somewhat vague to us,and empirical research did not offer a clear definition (but see Rentzsch, Schutz, &Schroder-Abe, in press). One issue that concerned us in particular was whether nerdstatus was better conceived of as a continuous or categorical variable. Given the lack ofclear guidelines, we followed Bosson et al. (2005) by measuring nerd identity in acontinuous fashion and determining people’s status as Nerds versus non-Nerds based onthe distance of their scores from the sample mean. This approach allowed us anonstigmatized control ‘‘group’’ (those one standard deviation below the mean) againstwhich to compare the responses of Nerds (those one standard deviation above the mean).

We predicted that, regardless of nerd status, participants should anticipateclassification as a nerd when imagining nerd-like behaviors. Also regardless of nerdstatus, participants should report heightened threats to belonging to the extent thatthey expect others to classify them as a nerd. Thus, we hypothesized a main effect ofclassification expectations in predicting threats to belonging. A different patternshould emerge, however, with regard to coherence threats. Expectations of nerdclassification should predict increases in coherence threat among non-Nerds, but notamong Nerds (for whom nerd classification is accurate). Thus, we expected aninteraction of nerd status and classification expectations in predicting threats tocoherence.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Method

ParticipantsParticipants were 239 (40 men and 199 women) undergraduates at a university in theSoutheastern USA who completed a survey in exchange for credit toward a courserequirement. Participants’ median age was 21, and they described themselves asWhite (55.6%), Black (18.8%), Latino/a (10.4%), Multiracial (5.4%), Asian (4.6%),Arabic (1.3%), and Other (3.8%). Because we focused here on an identity (nerd)whose cross-cultural and cross-linguistic generalizability was unknown to us, werestricted eligibility to native English speakers.

Materials and ProcedureParticipants completed the measures described below, in the order listed, as part ofan online survey administered through the psychology department. After completingall measures, participants provided demographic information.

Nerd self-identification. We wrote four questions to measure people’s nerdidentity: ‘‘To what extent do you consider yourself a nerd (geek, bookworm, etc.)?’’;‘‘To what extent do you value intellectual pursuits more than social or athleticpursuits?’’; ‘‘To what extent do you think of yourself as ‘book-ish’?’’; and ‘‘To whatextent do you tend to know a lot of obscure facts about things that most people yourage consider unimportant or uninteresting?’’ All responses were made on scales of 1(not at all) to 9 (very much). The items were internally consistent (a¼ .76), so weaveraged them.

Threats to belonging and coherence. Participants imagined themselves doingseven different public behaviors that were stereotypical of nerds (e.g., joining acomputer programming group; see the appendix for a complete list of the behaviors).To ensure the behaviors’ stereotypicality, we asked a separate sample of participantsto rate each behavior on a scale that ranged from 1 (Not at all associated with thegroup ‘‘nerds’’) to 9 (Very strongly associated with the group ‘‘nerds’’). On average, thebehaviors received ratings significantly above the scale midpoint of 5, M¼ 6.49,SD¼ 1.76, t(31)¼ 4.78, p5 .001.

To heighten participants’ engagement during this task, we instructed them toimagine each behavior as vividly as possible. After visualizing each behavior,participants used scales of 1 (definitely no) to 9 (definitely yes) to answer twoquestions about threats to belonging (‘‘Do you think that other people mightevaluate you negatively?’’; ‘‘Do you think that other people might view you as‘weird’?’’) and two questions about threats to coherence (‘‘Would you feel as thoughyou were not being yourself?’’; ‘‘Would you feel like this behavior was inconsistentwith your beliefs about who you really are?’’). The belonging and coherence itemsappeared in alternating order, and demonstrated acceptable internal consistenciesacross the behaviors (belonging: as¼ .67 to .86; coherence: as¼ .79 to .93), so weaveraged them separately for each behavior. We then averaged across the sevencomposites to create indices of total belonging threat (a¼ .76) and total coherencethreat (a¼ .76).

Likelihood ratings. On scales of 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (extremely likely),participants rated the likelihood that they would actually perform each of thebehaviors, and we averaged ratings to create a total likelihood score (a¼ .70).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Classification expectations. For each behavior, participants rated the likelihoodthat ‘‘others who saw this behavior would assume you were a nerd.’’ These ratingswere made on scales of 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (extremely likely). We averaged themto create an internally consistent index (a¼ .86) of people’s expectations of beinglabeled a ‘‘nerd.’’

Results

Preliminary correlation analyses revealed that the measure of nerd identitycorrelated positively with the likelihood of performing the nerd behaviors,r(237)¼ .39, p5 .01, and negatively with threats to coherence while performingthe nerd behaviors, r(237)¼7.29, p5 .01. These correlations offer evidence of thevalidity of the nerd identity measure. Moreover, the measures of belonging andcoherence threat were positively and moderately correlated, r(237)¼ .50, p5 .01,indicating that they are related, but distinct, types of threats.

We assumed that Nerds and non-Nerds alike should anticipate classification as anerd when imagining nerd behaviors. To test this, we created four nerd groups bysplitting the sample at the 25th, 50th, and 75th percentiles of the distribution of nerdidentity scores. We then compared each group’s classification expectations to thescale midpoint (5). The results of four one-sample t-tests revealed that, regardless ofwhether participants fell in the bottom quartile (N¼ 72; Mnerd identity¼ 3.27), secondquartile (N¼ 55; Mnerd identity¼ 4.72), third quartile (N¼ 63; Mnerd identity¼ 5.76), ortop quartile (N¼ 49;Mnerd identity¼ 7.22) of the nerd distribution, they expected to beclassified as a nerd by observers, Ms¼ 6.45, 6.44, 6.59, and 6.88, all ts4 7.16,ps5 .001. Thus, when visualizing nerd behaviors, people who identified morestrongly as a nerd expected accurate classification, whereas those who did notidentify as a nerd expected misclassification.

We predicted a main effect of classification expectations in predicting threats tobelonging, and an interaction of nerd status and classification expectations inpredicting threats to coherence. When testing predictions, we controlled forratings of the likelihood of doing the behaviors, which correlated with boththreats to belonging (r¼7.32, p5 .01) and coherence (r¼7.57, p5 .01). To testthe first hypothesis, we regressed threats to belonging onto likelihood ratings inStep 1 of a multiple regression model, expectations of being classified as a nerdand nerd identity scores in Step 2, and the expectations-by-identity interaction inStep 3. All predictors were first zero-centered (Aiken & West, 1991). Results(displayed in Table 1) revealed the predicted main effect of expectations, as wellas a marginally significant effect of nerd identity, and no interaction. Figure 1shows that, among both Nerds (those 1 SD above the mean in nerd identity)and non-Nerds (those 1 SD below the mean), stronger expectations of beingclassified as a nerd predicted stronger threats to belonging, bs4 .48, ts4 6.11,ps5 .001.

To test the second hypothesis, we regressed the coherence threats onto likelihoodratings in Step 1, expectations of classification as a nerd and nerd identity in Step 2,and the interaction term in Step 3. As shown in Table 1, we observed a main effect ofexpectations and a marginally significant effect of nerd identity, both of which werequalified by the predicted interaction. Figure 2 shows that, among non-Nerds,stronger misclassification expectations predicted stronger threats to coherence,b¼ .24, t(234)¼ 3.38, p5 .01. Conversely, among Nerds, expectations of beinglabeled a nerd were unrelated to coherence threats, t5 1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Summary

These results provide partial support for our model. Regardless of nerd status,people who imagined nerd-like behaviors expected a high likelihood of beingclassified as a nerd by observers. Moreover, when self-identified nerds envisioned

TABLE 1 Output of Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Belonging andCoherence Threats during Nerd Behaviors (Study 1)

Outcome variable

Belonging threats Coherence threats

Predictorvariable DR2 b DR2 b

Step 1 .101*** .323***Likelihood .32*** .57***

Step 2 .280*** .027**Likelihood .23*** .48***Expectations .52*** .15**Nerd identity .10{ .12*

Step 3 .001 .011*Likelihood .23*** .48***Expectations .51*** .14*Nerd identity .10{ .11{

Interaction .03 .11*

Notes: ***p5 .001; **p5 .01; *p5 .05; {p5 .10. Interaction¼Expectations6Nerd identity.

FIGURE 1 Threats to belonging as a function of nerd status and expectations ofbeing labeled a ‘‘nerd.’’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

themselves performing behaviors that would reveal their nerd status to others, theirexpectations of classification as a nerd predicted threats to belonging, but notcoherence. Thus, when belonging and coherence threats are measured separately,they display different associations with people’s expectations of classification into astigmatized group. Furthermore, although not addressed in our model, nonstigma-tized people who expected others to classify them as a nerd reported heightenedthreats to both belonging and coherence. For these people, misclassification into astigmatized group should challenge not only their social status (a belonging threat),but their stable self-views (a coherence threat) as well.

Although promising, the findings from Study 1 left one of our hypothesesuntested. Specifically, we did not test whether identity-based behaviors that conceal astigmatized identity elicit expectations of misclassification as nonstigmatized, andheightened coherence threats, among persons with a concealable stigma. Moreover,we wanted to test our ideas among members of a different, and more prototypical,stigmatized group.

Study 2

In Study 2, we tested our full model among gay men and lesbians, who constitute anideal sample for several reasons. Norms regarding the expression of prejudiceindicate that homophobia is generally considered more acceptable than otherprejudices such as racism, anti-Semitism, and dislike of the homeless (Crandall,Eshleman, & O’Brien, 2002). As such, gay men and lesbians who reveal their identityto others can expect a relatively high likelihood of interpersonal punishments.However, many gay men and lesbians have a positive gay identity and consider theirhomosexuality to be central to their sense of self (e.g., Bringaze & White, 2001;

FIGURE 2 Threats to coherence as a function of nerd status and expectations ofbeing labeled a ‘‘nerd.’’


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Frable et al., 1997). If so, then the need for verification of their gay/lesbian identitymay be powerful. Finally, given the pervasiveness of heteronormativity (Herek,1992, 1996), many gay men and lesbians will be automatically classified as straight byobservers unless they perform identity-based behaviors that reveal their homosexu-ality. Thus, gay men and lesbians may frequently find themselves faced with a trade-off between meeting their needs for belonging versus coherence.

We asked gay men and lesbians to imagine performing public behaviors thatshould either reveal or conceal their homosexuality. After visualizing eachbehavior, participants rated threats to belonging and coherence, estimated thelikelihood that observers would classify them as gay/lesbian and heterosexual, andrated the likelihood that they would actually perform the behaviors. To controlfor the potential roles of important identity factors in reactions to the behaviors,we measured participants’ ‘‘outness’’ and the centrality of their gay/lesbianidentity. Gay men and lesbians who are more out might be less troubled bythreats to belonging, as they have relatively more experience revealing theirstigma to others and negotiating the interpersonal outcomes. Similarly, thosewhose gay/lesbian identity is more central to their self-concept might be shieldedfrom belonging threats because of the strong sense of belonging they derive fromtheir group membership (Jetten, Branscombe, Schmitt, & Spears, 2001; Tajfel &Turner, 1986). At the same time, those with a more central gay/lesbian identitymight experience stronger coherence threats when they anticipate misclassificationas heterosexual.

We expected participants to report higher expectations of accurate classificationthan misclassification during imagined behaviors that revealed their homosexuality,and higher expectations of misclassification than accurate classification duringbehaviors that concealed their homosexuality. Next, we hypothesized thatexpectations of accurate classification as gay/lesbian would predict belonging threatsmore strongly than coherence threats, and expectations of misclassification asheterosexual should predict coherence threats more strongly than belonging threats.All of these patterns should emerge when controlling for likelihood of performingthe behaviors, centrality of gay/lesbian identity, and outness.

Method

ParticipantsParticipants were 104 lesbians, 86 gay men, and 1 person who did not indicategender. To be eligible, people had to describe themselves with a value of 7 orhigher on a scale of 1 (exclusively heterosexual/straight) to 9 (exclusively gay/lesbian). This was the first question of the survey; those who selected a value of 6or lower were asked to exit the survey. Participation was voluntary, and nocompensation was offered. We deleted data from three respondents who hadcompletion times longer than 63 hours (as compared to the average completiontime of 20.08 minutes).

Participants’ median age was 24 years, and they described themselves as White(75.9%), Latino/a (7.9%), Asian (5.2%), Multiracial (3.7%), Black (3.7%), Arabic(1.0%), Native American (1.0%), and Other (0.5%). Most participants (83.2%)resided in the USA (representing 29 states), and the remainder hailed from 10countries including England (6.3%), Canada (3.1%), and Ireland (2.1%).Participants were well-educated on average, with 84.8% having completed somecollege. Their median annual income was $60,000–$69,999.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Materials and ProcedureParticipants learned about the study through an advertisement posted on gay andlesbian websites and social network programs (e.g., MySpace, FaceBook). The adincluded a link to an online survey on the SurveyGizmo website that consisted of aninformed consent form followed by the measures described below, in the order listed.After completing all measures, participants provided demographic information.

Centrality of gay/lesbian identity. Participants responded to nine statementsabout the centrality of their gay/lesbian identity to their sense of self. These itemsincluded four that were modified from Luhtanen and Crocker’s (1992) CollectiveSelf-Esteem Scale (‘‘Being a gay man/lesbian is an important part of my self-image’’;‘‘Being a gay man/lesbian is not important to my sense of what kind of person I am’’;‘‘Being a gay man/lesbian is an important reflection of who I am’’; ‘‘Being a gayman/lesbian has very little to do with how I feel about myself’’). To these we addedfive items that we wrote for use in this study: ‘‘I value being a gay man/lesbian’’; ‘‘Mysexual orientation is central to my identity’’; ‘‘I am ashamed to be a gay man/lesbian’’; ‘‘I often think of myself as a gay man/lesbian’’; and ‘‘Being a gay man/lesbian is important to me.’’ After reverse coding negatively worded statements, weaveraged the nine items to create an internally consistent index (a¼ .84).

Outness. For each of 11 types of relationship partners (e.g., parents, siblings,coworkers, acquaintances), participants indicated how out they were (Mohr &Fassinger, 2000). The response scale ranged from 1 (person definitely does not knowabout your sexual orientation) to 7 (person definitely knows about your sexualorientation, and it is openly talked about), with each point in-between labeled in amanner that conveyed increasingly greater openness (e.g., the midpoint was labeled‘‘person probably knows about your sexual orientation, but it is rarely talked about’’).If a given relationship partner was not applicable, they received a rating of ‘‘0’’. The11 items formed an internally consistent index (a¼ .78), so we averaged them.

Threats to belonging and coherence. Participants imagined themselves doing fourpublic behaviors that are stereotypical of gays/lesbians (e.g., marching in a gay prideparade), and four that are stereotypical of heterosexuals (e.g., bringing an other-sexdate to a dinner party; see the appendix). A separate sample of participants ratedeach behavior on a scale that ranged from 1 (More strongly associated with gay men/lesbians) to 9 (More strongly associated with straight men/women). On average, thehomosexual behaviors were rated below the scale midpoint, M¼ 3.13, SD¼ 1.02,t(31)¼710.38, p5 .001, and the heterosexual behaviors were rated above themidpoint, M¼ 6.63, SD¼ 1.29, t(31)¼ 7.13, p5 .001.

As in Study 1, we instructed participants to imagine each behavior as vividly aspossible. After visualizing each behavior, participants used scales of 1 (definitely no)to 9 (definitely yes) to answer two questions about threats to belonging (‘‘Do youthink that people who did not know you might evaluate you negatively?’’; ‘‘Do youthink that people who did not know you might form a negative impression of you?’’)and two questions about threats to coherence (‘‘Would you feel as though you werenot being yourself?’’; ‘‘Would you feel like this behavior was inconsistent with yourbeliefs about who you really are?’’). These items appeared in alternating order, anddemonstrated acceptable internal consistencies (belonging: as¼ .84 to .95; coherence:as¼ .76 to .91), so we averaged them separately for each behavior. We then averagedacross the composites associated with the homosexual behaviors to create indices of


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

belonging threat (a¼ .80) and coherence threat (a¼ .66). For the heterosexualbehaviors, the composites associated with one behavior (H3, see the appendix)reduced Cronbach’s alpha. We therefore excluded all ratings of this behavior (fromthese and subsequent scales) and averaged the remaining three composites to createindices of threat (belonging: a¼ .60; coherence: a¼ .55) during heterosexualbehaviors.

Likelihood ratings. Participants rated the likelihood that they would performeach behavior. Ratings were made on scales of 1 (not at all likely) to 9 (extremelylikely), and we averaged them separately for the homosexual (a¼ .65) andheterosexual (a¼ .65) behaviors.

Classification expectations. For each behavior, participants rated the likelihoodthat strangers who saw their behavior would assume they were ‘‘gay or lesbian,’’ andthen ‘‘heterosexual.’’ These ratings were made on scales of 1 (not at all likely) to 9(extremely likely). We averaged them to create measures of expectations ofclassification as gay/lesbian during homosexual behaviors (a¼ .71), gay/lesbianduring heterosexual behaviors (a¼ .77), heterosexual during homosexual behaviors(a¼ .68), and heterosexual during heterosexual behaviors (a¼ .71).

Results

Because preliminary analyses revealed that participants’ gender was correlated withseveral other variables, we controlled for it in all analyses. This decision was alsojustified by research indicating substantial differences in how gay men and lesbiansconstruct and experience their sexual identity (e.g., Savin-Williams & Diamond,2000).

We expected participants to anticipate more accurate than inaccurate classifica-tion during homosexual behaviors, and more misclassification than accurateclassification during heterosexual behaviors. To test this, we submitted classificationexpectations to a 2 (Participant Gender: women vs. men)6 2 (Behavior Type:homosexual vs. heterosexual)6 2 (Classification Expectation: gay/lesbian vs.heterosexual) mixed-model analysis of variance (ANOVA), with repeated measureson the last two factors. Results revealed a Behavior-by-Expectation interaction, F(1,187)¼ 1401.90, p5 .001, that was not moderated by Gender (no three-wayinteraction, F5 1). As expected, participants anticipated a much greater likelihoodof classification as gay/lesbian than heterosexual during homosexual behaviors,Ms¼ 8.16 versus 2.20, F(1, 187)¼ 1747.81, p5 .001, and they expected a muchgreater likelihood of classification as heterosexual than gay/lesbian duringheterosexual behaviors, Ms¼ 7.15 versus 2.83, F(1, 187)¼ 374.96, p5 .001. Thisinteraction remained significant when we entered outness, gay/lesbian identity, andlikelihood of performing both types of behaviors in separate analyses of covariance(ANCOVAs), Fs4 87.00, ps5 .001.

Next, we predicted that expectations of accurate classification as gay/lesbianwould elicit threats to belonging, whereas expectations of misclassification asheterosexual would elicit threats to coherence. Before testing these paths, we firstconfirmed that the means for belonging and coherence threats followed the expectedpattern. A 2 (Participant Gender: women vs. men)6 2 (Behavior Type: homosexualvs. heterosexual)6 2 (Threat Type: belonging vs. coherence) mixed-model ANOVA,with repeated measures on the last two factors, yielded a Behavior-by-Threat


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

interaction, F(1, 188)¼ 439.28, p5 .001, that followed a very similar pattern to theone reported above. During homosexual behaviors, participants reported strongerthreats to belonging than to coherence, Ms¼ 5.77 versus 2.66, F(1, 188)¼ 516.15,p5 .001; during heterosexual behaviors, participants reported stronger threats tocoherence than to belonging, Ms¼ 4.43 versus 3.07, F(1, 188)¼ 102.88, p5 .001.This interaction remained significant when we entered the covariates in separateANCOVAs, Fs4 8.00, ps5 .01.1

We next conducted four multiple regression analyses to test the links betweenclassification expectations and self-threats. In the first two analyses, we tested thelinks between expected classification as gay/lesbian during homosexual behaviorsand threats to belonging and coherence. We regressed belonging threats duringhomosexual behaviors onto the set of covariates (gender, gay/lesbian identity,outness, likelihood) in Step 1, and expectations of classification as gay/lesbian inStep 2. As displayed in Table 2, the covariates were significant at Step 1, and moreimportantly, expectations of classification as gay/lesbian accounted for significantadditional variance at Step 2. When we regressed coherence threats duringhomosexual behaviors onto the same predictors, the set of covariates was significantat Step 1, but expectations of classification as gay/lesbian were not significant at Step2. Moreover, the 95% confidence intervals for the parameter estimates forclassification expectations in the models predicting belonging threats (CI¼ .270 to.734) and coherence threats (CI¼7.184 to .128) did not overlap, indicating thatexpectations of correct classification into a stigmatized group predict belongingthreats more strongly than coherence threats.

In the next two analyses, we tested the links between expected classification asheterosexual during heterosexual behaviors and threats to belonging and coherence.When we regressed coherence threats during heterosexual behaviors onto the samepredictors described above, the covariates were significant at Step 1, and

TABLE 2 Output of Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Belonging andCoherence Threats during Homosexual Behaviors (Study 2)

Outcome variable


Predictor variable DR2 b DR2 b

Step 1 .093** .483***G/L identity .09 .14*Likelihood .28** .55***Gender .08 .15**Outness .05 .03

Step 2 .082*** .000G/L identity .10 .14*Likelihood .30** .55***Gender .05 .15**Outness .05 .03Expectations .29*** .02

Notes: ***p5 .001; ** p5 .01; *p5 .05. G/L identity¼Gay/Lesbian identity. Gender wascoded men¼0, women¼1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

expectations of classification as heterosexual accounted for significant variance atStep 2 (see Table 3). Conversely, when we regressed belonging threats onto thepredictors, the covariates were significant at Step 1, but expectations of classificationas heterosexual were not significant at Step 2. However, the 95% confidence intervalsfor the parameter estimates for classification expectations in the models predictingcoherence threats (CI¼ .032 to .308) and belonging threats (CI¼7.109 to .163)overlapped somewhat. Thus, although only the predicted path from misclassificationexpectations to coherence threats reached significance, we cannot conclude that thispath was stronger than the path from misclassification expectations to belongingthreats.

Summary

Among a diverse sample of gay men and lesbians, identity-based behaviors thatrevealed their stigmatized identity to others led to increased expectations ofclassification as gay/lesbian and threats to belonging. Conversely, behaviors thatconcealed their stigmatized identity from others led to increased expectations ofmisclassification as heterosexual and subsequent threats to coherence. This isconsistent with our theorizing, and to our knowledge offers the first empiricalevidence that people with concealable stigmatized identities experience heightenedcoherence threats during behaviors that might lead others to misclassify them asnonstigmatized.

General Discussion

Recent years have seen a surge of interest in the unique stressors and outcomesassociated with possession of a concealable stigma. The current findings add to this

TABLE 3 Output of Multiple Regression Analyses Predicting Belonging andCoherence Threats during Heterosexual Behaviors (Study 2)

Outcome variable


Predictor variable DR2 b DR2 b

Step 1 .078** .340***G/L identity .02 .14*Likelihood .27** .57***Gender .19* .15*Outness .02 .08

Step 2 .001 .021*G/L identity .01 .13*Likelihood .27** .57***Gender .19* .16*Outness .01 .04Expectations .03 .15*

Notes: ***p5 .001; **p5 .01; *p5 .05. G/L identity¼Gay/Lesbian identity. Gender wascoded men¼0, women¼1.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

work by demonstrating a consequence of concealable stigmas that, to ourknowledge, has not been directly assessed before: threats to the need forpsychological coherence. Specifically, we tested and found support for a behavior-expectation-threat model in which identity-based behaviors that reveal a stigmatizedidentity to others lead to expectations of accurate classification as stigmatized,whereas identity-based behaviors that conceal a stigmatized identity lead toexpectations of misclassification as nonstigmatized. In turn, expectations of accurateclassification predict threats to belonging, and expectations of misclassificationpredict threats to coherence.

The findings from Study 1 provided partial support for the model by showing thatstronger self-identification as a nerd predicted increased threats to belonging, but notcoherence, during imagined behaviors that should reveal one’s nerd status toobservers (e.g., attending a Lord of the Rings convention, studying at the library onweekend nights). Moreover, non-nerds who expected to get misclassified as a nerdexperienced threats to their needs for both belonging and coherence. In addition toreplicating and extending past work (Bosson et al., 2005), this study demonstratedthat the same behaviors can elicit different patterns of threat responses depending onthe identity relevant information that they convey to others (e.g., Oyserman et al.,2007).

In the second study, we tested the full model and found support for all of thehypothesized paths. Specifically, gay men and lesbians expected observers to classifythem as gay/lesbian during stereotypically homosexual behaviors (e.g., walking in agay pride parade), and they expected observers to classify them as heterosexualduring stereotypically heterosexual behaviors (e.g., bringing an other-sex date to adinner party). Moreover, threats to belonging and coherence followed from identity-based behaviors in the expected manner: Gay men and lesbians experiencedbelonging (but not coherence) threats when they expected others to recognize theirstigma, and they experienced coherence (but not belonging) threats when theyexpected others to perceive them as heterosexual. Thus, regardless of their outnessand the centrality of their stigmatized identity, gay men and lesbians felt like theywere ‘‘not being themselves’’ and were ‘‘behaving inconsistently with their self-views’’ during imagined behaviors that might lead observers to perceive them asheterosexual.

As noted earlier, our focus on the need for coherence is informed by self-verification theory, which emphasizes humans’ need for consistency and regularity intheir self-concepts and social worlds (e.g., Swann et al., 2003). In a sense, theresearch question we pursued here mirrors the question that drove the long-standing‘‘Self-enhancement/Self-verification’’ debate (e.g., Sedikides, 1993; Swann, 1990) inthe self literature: Do people want to be perceived positively, or do they want to beperceived consistently? The answer, that people want both positivity and consistency,is fairly well established (e.g., Swann, Krull, & Pelham, 1989), but much of thisresearch examines people’s desires for feedback pertaining to their personal identities(individual traits) rather than their social identities (group memberships). To ourknowledge, the studies presented here are the first to examine people’s competingdesires for belonging (which is comparable to positivity) versus consistencypertaining to a stigmatized social status.

Although most people desire both positive social connections and consistentfeedback, persons with concealable stigmas must regularly sacrifice one of theseneeds in order to pursue the other. Thus, the current work adds to a growing body ofresearch that examines the unique interpersonal and intrapsychic difficulties


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

associated with possession of a concealable stigma (e.g., Pachankis, 2007).Moreover, it does so in a manner that pinpoints the links between individuals’specific behaviors, their expectations about others’ perceptions of them, and theirensuing self-threats. In this sense, the work presented here offers a contextualizedglimpse of how persons and situations interact to shape psychological outcomes.

Limitations and Directions for Future Research

Despite the promise of these findings, there are several limitations of this work thatdeserve mention. First, rather than relying on people’s reactions to hypotheticalbehaviors, it will be important to examine the expectation-threat sequences that ariseduring actual identity-based behaviors that conceal or reveal a stigmatized identity.Although past work suggested that the behavior visualization task used hereproduces effects similar to those obtained with a behavioral manipulation (Bossonet al., 2005), there are sound reasons to question the validity of people’s reactions tohypothetical stimuli. If nothing else, a behavior visualization task lacks thepsychological realism of actual behaviors; we might therefore expect people’sfeelings of threat to be even stronger during real behaviors than they were inresponse to our hypothetical ones.

Next, although we assume that threats to belonging and coherence haveimplications for people’s affective state, we did not assess affective reactions directlyin the current studies. That is, we measured self-threats at the level of cognitiveappraisals (e.g., ‘‘Would you feel as though you were not being yourself?’’; ‘‘Do youthink that other people might evaluate you negatively?’’) rather than at the level ofemotional responses (e.g., ‘‘Would you feel upset about not being yourself?’’;‘‘Would you feel sad about being evaluated negatively?’’). Although researchdocuments several of the immediate, negative, affective consequences of threats tobelonging (e.g., Williams, 2007) and coherence (e.g., Swann, Chang-Schneider, &Angulo, 2007), it will be important in future investigations to assess the specificemotional responses experienced by persons with concealable stigmas who mustsacrifice one of these needs. For example, whereas belonging threats may elicitprimarily sadness and anger (e.g., van Beest & Williams, 2006), coherence threatsmight instead elicit anxious arousal (e.g., Wood, Heimpel, Newby-Clark, & Ross,2005).

Along similar lines, it will be important in future work to address some of themore long-term consequences of repeated threats to belonging and coherence. Onepossibility, suggested by self-verification theory, is that repeated threats tocoherence—of the sort experienced by persons with concealable stigmas—willultimately lead people to desert those relationships and social environments that failto offer verification of their identities (e.g., Swann & Pelham, 2002). When cutting offties is not possible or desirable, however, repeated threats to coherence might lead tothe sorts of negative psychological outcomes summarized earlier, such as low self-esteem (Frable et al., 1998) or feelings of guilt and inauthenticity (Granfield, 1991).Thus, clarifying the links between the context-specific self-threats we assessed here,and their long-term psychological consequences, remains an important goal forfuture work.

Of course, it is worth noting that, in terms of the affective and psychologicalconsequences of coherence threats, there is likely an important difference betweenindividuals who intentionally hide a concealable stigma and those who getmisclassified against their will. To the extent that one intends to hide a stigmatized


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

identity from others, successful subterfuge might produce positive feelings of self-determination and control rather than (or in addition to) undesirable threats tocoherence. The current investigations sidestepped this issue by requiring allparticipants to imagine the same sets of behaviors, and then controlling forvariables that might provide insight into actors’ intentions to hide their stigmatizedstatus from others (e.g., the likelihood of them actually doing the behaviors, their‘‘outness’’). Thus, if intention to conceal a stigmatized identity were either measuredor manipulated in future research, findings might reveal that coherence threats areespecially strong among people who do not intend to conceal and especially weakamong those who do intend to conceal.

Finally, although we are heartened by the replication of our findings acrosstwo very different types of concealable stigmas, it is important to test thegeneralizability of our model to other concealable stigmas as well. Doing so willallow further refinements in our theorizing. For example, whereas we focused onstigmatized identities that may be relatively permanent, central, and positive, atleast for some people, other concealable stigmas may be more temporary (e.g.,unemployment status; illiteracy), peripheral (e.g., infertility; a history of mentalillness), or negative/traumatic (e.g., abortion; criminal status). To the extent thata stigmatized identity is temporary, it might not elicit the same threats tobelonging as a more permanent stigma will. Likewise, people might not feel asstrong a need for verification of a concealable stigma that is peripheral as onethat is central. Concealable stigmas differ along numerous dimensions, and a fullunderstanding of the links between behaviors, expectations, and self-threats willrequire more extensive consideration of the differences between various types ofconcealable stigmas.

Summary

To organize and integrate the extant research, Pachankis (2007) recently proposeda comprehensive, cognitive-affective-behavioral model of the consequences ofconcealing a stigmatized identity. The current work builds on this model byexamining a consequence that has heretofore received relatively little attention:the threats to coherence that arise when a stigmatized identity goes unacknow-ledged by others. Our findings establish that, just as people with concealablestigmas experience interpersonal threats during behaviors that reveal their stigma,they experience feelings of ‘‘not being themselves’’ during behaviors that concealtheir stigma. We hope that the results presented will pave the way for additionalinvestigations of the consequences of coherence threats among persons withconcealable stigmas.

Note

1. This analysis also yielded a significant three-way interaction of Participant Sex,

Behavior Type, and Threat Type, F(1, 188)¼ 5.20, p5 .03. Inspection of the three-wayinteraction revealed that the Behavior-by-Threat interaction was significant, andfollowed the same pattern as described in the text, among both gay men, F(1,

85)¼ 148.13, p5 .001, and lesbians, F(1, 103)¼ 318.20, p5 .001. The three-wayinteraction seemed to reflect the fact that gay men, as compared to lesbians, reportedstronger belonging threats, F(1, 188)¼ 3.85, p¼ .05, and stronger coherence threats,F(1, 188)¼ 23.67, p5 .001, during homosexual behaviors.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

References

Aiken, L. S., & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpretation interactions.Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Baumeister, R. F., & Leary, M. R. (1995). The need to belong: Desire for interpersonalattachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychological Bulletin, 117, 497–529.

Beals, K. P., Peplau, L. A., & Gable, S. L. (2009). Stigma management and well-being: The

role of perceived social support, emotional processing, and suppression. Personality andSocial Psychology Bulletin, 35, 867–879.

Bosson, J. K., Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Taylor, J. N. (2005). Role rigidity: A problem ofidentity misclassification? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 552–565.

Bosson, J. K., Taylor, J. N., & Prewitt-Freilino, J. L. (2006). Gender role violations andidentity misclassification: The roles of audience and actor variables. Sex Roles, 55, 13–24.

Bringaze, T. B., & White, L. J. (2001). Living out proud: Factors contributing to healthy identitydevelopment in lesbian leaders. Journal of Mental Health Counseling, 23, 162–173.

Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O’Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and

suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality andSocial Psychology, 82, 359–378.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G.Lindsey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (4th ed.. Vol. 2, pp. 504–533). Boston:

McGraw-Hill.Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human

behavior. New York: Plenum Press.

Derlega, V., Winstead, B., Greene, K., Serovich, J., & Elwood, W. (2002). Perceived HIV-related stigma and HIV disclosure to relationship partners after finding out about theseropositive diagnosis. Journal of Health Psychology, 7, 415–432.

Frable, D. E. S., Blackstone, T., & Scherbaum, C. (1990). Marginal and mindful: Deviants insocial interactions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 140–149.

Frable, D. E. S., Platt, L., & Hoey, S. (1998). Concealable stigmas and positive self-

perceptions: Feeling better around similar others. Journal of Personality and SocialPsychology, 74, 909–922.

Frable, D. E. S., Wortman, C., & Joseph, J. (1997). Predicting self-esteem, well-being, anddistress in a cohort of gay men: The importance of cultural stigma, personal visibility,

community networks, and positive identity. Journal of Personality, 65, 599–624.Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: Notes on the management of a spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs,

NJ: Prentice Hall.

Granfield, R. (1991). Making it by faking it: Working-class students in an elite academicenvironment. Journal of Contemporary Ethnography, 20, 331–351.

Guidano, V. F., & Liotti, G. (1983). Cognitive processes and emotional disorders. New York:

Guilford Press.Herek, G. M. (1992). The social context of hate crimes: Notes on cultural heterosexism. In G.

M. Herek & K. T. Berrill (Eds.), Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians andgay men (pp. 89–112). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Herek, G. M. (1996). Heterosexism and homophobia. In R. P. Cabaj & T. S. Stein (Eds.),Textbook of homosexuality and mental health (pp. 101–113). Washington, DC: AmericanPsychiatric Association.

Herek, G. M., & Berrill, K. T. (1992). Hate crimes: Confronting violence against lesbians andgay men. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

Jetten, J., Branscombe, N. R., Schmitt, M. T., & Spears, R. (2001). Rebels with a cause:

Group identification as a response to perceived discrimination from the mainstream.Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 1204–1213.

Jones, E. E., Farina, A., Hastorf, A. H., Markus, H., Miller, D. T., & Scott, A. S. (1984).

Social stigma: The psychology of marked relationships. New York: Freeman.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Jones, E. E., & Gordon, E. M. (1972). Timing of self-disclosure and its effects on personalattraction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 24, 358–365.

Lecky, P. (1945). Self-consistency: A theory of personality. New York: Island Press.Luhtanen, R., & Crocker, J. (1992). A Collective Self-Esteem Scale: Self-evaluation of one’s

social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 302–318.

Major, B., Cozzarelli, C., Sciacchitano, A. M., Cooper, M. L., Testa, M., & Mueller, P. M.(1990). Perceived social support, self-efficacy, and adjustment to abortion. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 59, 452–463.

Major, B., & Gramzow, R. H. (1999). Abortion as stigma: Cognitive and emotionalimplications of concealment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 735–745.

Mohr, J. J., & Fassinger, R. E. (2000). Measuring dimensions of lesbian and gay maleexperience. Measurement and Evaluation in Counseling and Development, 33, 66–90.

Oyserman, D., Brickman, D., Bybee, D., & Celious, A. (2006). Fitting in matters: Markers ofin-group belonging and academic outcomes. Psychological Science, 17, 854–861.

Oyserman, D., Fryberg, S. A., & Yoder, N. (2007). Identity-based motivation and health.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 93, 1011–1027.Pachankis, J. E. (2007). The psychological implications of concealing a stigma: A cognitive-

affective-behavioral model. Psychological Bulletin, 133, 328–345.

Popper, K. R. (1963). Conjectures and refutations: The growth of scientific knowledge. NewYork: Basic Books.

Prewitt-Freilino, J. L., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Defending the self against identity

misclassification. Self and Identity, 7, 168–183.Quinn, D. M. (2006). Concealable versus conspicuous stigmatized identities. In S. Levin & C.

van Laar (Eds.), Stigma and group inequality: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 83–103). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.

Quinn, D. M., & Chaudoir, S. R. (2009). Living with a concealable stigmatized identity:The impact of anticipated stigma, centrality, salience, and cultural stigma onpsychological distress and health. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97,

634–651.Rentzsch, K., Schutz, A., & Schroder-Abe, M. (in press). Being labeled ‘‘nerd.’’ Factors that

influence social acceptance of high-achieving students. Journal of Experimental Education.

Rhoads, R. A. (1994). Coming out in college: The struggle for a queer identity. Westport, CT:Bergin & Garvey.

Rogers, C. R. (1961). On becoming a person. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.Ryan, R. L., & Deci, E. L. (2000). Self-determination theory and the facilitation of intrinsic

motivation, social development, and well-being. American Psychologist, 55, 68–78.Ryff, C. D. (1989). Happiness is everything, or is it? Explorations on the meaning

of psychological well-being. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 1069–

1081.Savin-Williams, R. C., & Diamond, L. M. (2000). Sexual identity trajectories among sexual-

minority youths: Gender comparisons. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29, 607–627.

Sedikides, C. (1993). Assessment, enhancement, and verification determinants of the self-evaluation process. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 317–338.

Smart, L., & Wegner, D. M. (2000). The hidden costs of hidden stigma. In T. F. Heatherton &

R. E. Kleck (Eds.), Social psychology of stigma (pp. 220–242). New York: Guilford Press.Swann, W. B., Jr. (1990). To be adored or to be known? The interplay of self-enhancement

and self-verification. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.),Motivation and cognition(pp. 404–448). New York: Guilford Press.

Swann, W. B., Jr., & Bosson, J. K. (2008). Identity negotiation: A theory of self and socialinteraction. In O. John, R. Robins, & L. Pervin (Eds.), Handbook of personalitypsychology: Theory and research I (pp. 448–471). New York: Guilford.

Swann, W. B., Jr., Chang-Schneider, C., & Angulo, S. (2007). Self-verification in relationshipsas an adaptive process. In J. Wood, A. Tesser, & J. Holmes (Eds.), The self and socialrelationships (pp. 49–72). New York: Psychology Press.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Swann, W. B., Jr., Krull, D. S., & Pelham, B. W. (1989). Agreeable fancy or disagreeabletruth? Reconciling self-enhancement and self-verification. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 57, 782–791.Swann, W. B., Jr., & Pelham, B. W. (2002). Who wants out when the going gets good?

Psychological investment and preference for self-verifying college roommates. Self and

Identity, 1, 219–233.Swann, W. B., Jr., Rentfrow, P. J., & Guinn, J. S. (2003). Self-verification: The search for

coherence. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 367–

383). New York: Guilford Press.Swann, W. B., Jr., Stein-Seroussi, A., & Giesler, R. B. (1992). Why people self-verify. Journal

of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 392–401.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of intergroup behavior. In S.

Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations (pp. 7–24). Chicago:Nelson-Hall.

van Beest, I., & Williams, K. D. (2006). When inclusion costs and ostracism pays, ostracism

still hurts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 918–928.Williams, K. D. (2007). Ostracism. Annual Review of Psychology, 58, 425–452.Wood, J. V., Heimpel, S. A., Newby-Clark, I., & Ross, M. (2005). Snatching defeat from the

jaws of victory: Self-esteem differences in the experience and anticipation of success.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 764–780.

APPENDIX

Behavior visualization task

Stereotypical Nerd Behaviors (Study 1)

N1. You want to learn more about computer programming, so you join astudent group of computer programming enthusiasts. The groupmeets regularly in the dining area of the student union to socializeand talk about ‘‘hot’’ computer topics (e.g., new software, networking,etc.).

N2. You establish a routine of studying in the campus library on Friday andSaturday nights. Some of your dorm mates ask you where you’ve beenspending your weekend evenings, and you tell them that you’ve been at thelibrary.

N3. You go to a Lord of the Rings convention dressed up as your favoritecharacter, Legolas. At the convention, you get to meet some of the actorswho played the extra hobbits in the movies, and you take lots of pictures withthem.

N4. You always carry around a pocket dictionary so that you can look up thedefinitions of words whenever you need to. One day, you overhear someonein the Student Center asking their friend what a certain word means. Youquickly pull out your dictionary, look up the word, and then turn to thestranger and tell them the definition.

N5. One Saturday night, when your friends invite you to go with them to a bar,you decline their offer because you want to stay at home and play a newcomputer game that you just bought. The game consists of an alternate,virtual reality world in which you must choose a character and hone yourskills to move up in the ranks.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

N6. You only have one semester left in college, and you’ve already met all of yourdegree requirements. You need to take an elective of your choice, and you’venarrowed it down to either ‘‘Golf for Beginners’’ or ‘‘Introduction toQuantum Physics.’’ Because you always like to learn new intellectual things,you tell your advisor and friends that you have decided to take the physicscourse.

N7. While waiting for your friends to show up at a local bar one evening, youdecide to get in a little more studying for an upcoming exam in yourChemistry class. You take your chemistry textbook out of your backpackand begin to read it.

Stereotypical Homosexual Behaviors (Study 2)

G1. You participate in a local LGBT group’s gay pride activities by marching inthe pride parade. The plan is to march through the heart of the busycommercial district of the city, to raise awareness of the LGBT community.You walk in the front line of the parade, carrying a large rainbow flag. Thesidewalks are full of parade spectators, as well as pedestrians who are outshopping.

G2. You go shopping at the mall on a busy Saturday afternoon with a same-sexfriend. As you walk from store to store, the two of you hold hands.

G3. One Friday evening, you and a same-sex friend are hanging out at ‘‘RainbowRoom,’’ a gay/lesbian bar with a big, neon rainbow sign out front. Yourfriend suggests walking a few blocks to a different bar, so the two of youleave through the front door of ‘‘Rainbow Room.’’ Because it is a Fridaynight in the heart of the restaurant district, the sidewalk is full of people whoare out eating, shopping, and bar hopping.

G4. You are doing volunteer work in support of an amendment that willlegalize same-sex marriages in your state. One Saturday afternoon, you goto a local shopping mall and spend several hours asking shoppers whopass by to ‘‘Please sign a petition supporting marriage rights for gays andlesbians.’’

Stereotypical Heterosexual Behaviors (Study 2)

H1. A good friend invites you to eat Thanksgiving dinner with his family, andtells you to bring a friend along if you want to. You invite your platonic,opposite-sex friend Taylor to accompany you. At one point during thedinner, when Taylor is in the kitchen, several of the other dinner guests starttalking about Taylor, and asking you questions about your relationship. Forexample, they mention how ‘‘attractive’’ Taylor is, and they ask how longyou and Taylor have been ‘‘together.’’ You agree with them that Taylor isvery cute.

H2. After work one evening, several new coworkers in your office invite you to godancing with them at a predominantly straight singles bar. At the bar, anopposite-sex stranger asks you to dance and you accept. Your co-workerswatch you dancing with the stranger, and they smile encouragingly.

H3. Your company initiates a new domestic partnership policy that letsemployees purchase insurance benefit packages for their romantic partners,even if they are not married. Several coworkers whom you don’t know very


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

well are discussing the new policy one day during lunch. One coworkercomplains that they don’t know anyone in the company who is gay orlesbian, so ‘‘why should everyone else have to pay more for a pooled benefitspackage that won’t get any use?’’ You respond with, ‘‘Yeah, I doubt it wouldget much use.’’ (Note: Responses to this behavior were excluded from allanalyses.)

H4. You and Chris—your new, opposite-sex colleague at work—have severalconversations and discover that you have a lot in common. Because youwould like to have more time to talk, you ask Chris to grab a cup of coffeewith you one evening after work. The two of you leave work together andwalk to a nearby coffee shop. You share a table for several hours, talking andlaughing together.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Uni

vers

ity o

f So

uth

Flor

ida]

at 0

8:26

13

Febr

uary

201

2

Concealing to Belong, Revealing to be Known: Classification Expectations and Self-threats Among...

Documents

Transcript of Concealing to Belong, Revealing to be Known: Classification Expectations and Self-threats Among...