Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

1. DISCLOSURE DISCONNECTS:A THEORETICAL MODEL OF THE DISCLOSURE OF INVISIBLE STIGMAS ACROSS LIFE DOMAINS Belle Rose Ragins University of Wisconsin-Milwaukee

2. Overview • Briefly examine the construct of invisible stigmas • Present model of antecedents to disclosure • Analyze impact of disclosure disconnects on psychological and identity outcomes • Directions for future research and theory development.

3. What are Stigmas?(Goffman, 1963; Jones et al., 1984; Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998; Dovidio, Major & Crocker, 2000) • Stigmas are: • Individual attributes that are viewed as personal flaws; • Undesirable, deviant or repulsive characteristics that reflect the individual’s character, physical body or group membership; • Identity that is devalued in some social setting; • Social construction. Social context defines stigma and whether individual views self in terms of stigma. • Heightened stigmatization of Arab-Americans post 9/11 • LGB moved from sign of mental illness to prime time t.v. • Stigmas shape identities and affect individual’s cognition, affect and behaviors.

4. Examples of Invisible Stigmas • Sexual orientation(Croteau, 1996; Ragins, 2004) • Invisible disabilities(epilepsy, cancer, MS, HIV/AIDS, mental illness, alcoholism/drug abuse)(McLauglin, Bell & Stringer, 2004; Stone & Colella, 1996; Scrambler & Hopkins, 1986; Corrigan & Penn, 1999). • Religion and religious beliefs (Itzkovitz, 2001) • Social class(Sanchez & Schlosberg, 2001) • Ambiguous racial identity(Sanchez & Schlosberg, 2001) • Life experiences(victim of sexual assault/child abuse; criminal record; abortion; infertility; adoption)(Major & Gramzow, 1984; Fisher, 2003; Whiteford & Gonzalez, 1995; Somer & Szwarcberg, 2001; Feiring, 1996; March, 1995; Weidner, 1983)

5. Unique Challenges of Invisible Stigmas • Decision to Disclose Stigma • Decision occurs with each social interaction • Disclosure Continuum: different strategies with different people in different life domains. • Integrate, Avoid, Pass, or Counterfeit (Woods, 1994) • Assumed not to have the stigma; forces the issue • Lack of control over disclosure process • State of uncertainty: who knows, who doesn’t? • Risk of being intentionally or unintentionally “outed” • Disclosure Disconnects: Differing degrees of disclosure across work and non-work domains. Divergent concealment across life settings may lead to stress and identity conflict.

6. Need for Model of Disclosure Across Life Domains • Need a unifying framework for understanding the antecedents and outcomes associated with disclosure of invisible stigmas. • Need holistic perspective that examines disclosure decisions across life domains: • Disclosure occurs in both work and non-work domains (home/community) • Recognize that we bring work home and home to work; • Support received in one setting may spillover to another; so may fears associated with disclosure.

7. Antecedents to Disclosure • Individual and environmental factors combine to affect disclosure decisions. • 1. Psychological variablesof self-verification and identity centrality • 2. Environmental support for disclosure • 3. Characteristics of stigma

9. Self-Verification and Identity Centrality • Core psychological processes drive individuals to affirm stigmatized identities. • Self-Verification Theory (Swann, 1983; 1987; 2004) • People are motivated to have others see them as they see themselves in order to obtain psychological stability & coherence. • Identity Centrality and Self-Concept • Individuals who do not view themselves in terms of their stigma should have little motivation to disclose this identity. • Self-categorization theory (Turner, 1985): identity becomes central when it is valued, frequently used and incorporated into self-concept (cf. Ashforth, 2001; Hogg & Terry, 2000). • Aligned with idea of “Master Status Stigmas” which are central to individual’s self concept (Goffman, 1963; Jones ,1984)

10. Psychological Variable Propositions • Proposition #1a: Individuals who view themselves in terms of their stigma will be intrinsically motivated to disclose their identity in order to obtain congruence between self-views and the views others have of them. • Proposition #1b: The centrality of the identity to individual’s self-concept increases their need for affirmation and the subsequent disclosure of their stigmatized identity.

11. Three Sources of Environmental Support for Disclosure • Presence of Similar Others • Others who have disclosed successfully provide social support and affirmation; triggers relational demography processes • Supportive Relationships and Allies • Individuals who do not have stigma but consciously and deliberately support those who do • Provide social support (trust, acceptance, security) • Instrumental support (protect, buffer and intervene) • Institutional Support (Safe Havens) • Culture, climate, practices & policies of org./community • Symbolic Support (validate group: gay pride festivals) • Instrumental Support (development/enforcement of policies that prohibit discrimination; hate crime legislation.)

12. Environment Propositions • Proposition #2a: Support for disclosure will facilitate the decision to disclose. Support is derived from three sources: the presence of similar others, the presence of supportive/ally relationships and institutional support. • #2b: These sources provide social, instrumental and symbolic forms of support and influence disclosure through heightened self-esteem, increased perceptions of trust and safety, and strengthened perceptions of the importance and centrality of the stigmatized identity. • #2c: Safe Haven Cycle: Cycle of disclosure in safe haven environments. Safe havens increase disclosures and attracts stigmatized group. Critical mass strengthens identity and increases demand for recognition and institutional support.

13. Stigma Characteristics • Stigmas elicit different responses when viewed as having certain characteristics (Jones et al., 1984) • Controllability: Individual responsible for stigma. • Peril or Threat: Danger to others. • Disruptiveness: Discomfort in social interactions. • Course: Stigma reveals itself over time (HIV; cancer) • Proposition #3: Individuals will be less likely to disclose invisible stigmas that are viewed as controllable, threatening, disruptive to others, and stigmas that will not reveal themselves naturally over time.

15. Disclosure Disconnects and Identity Outcomes • Identity Denial • Concealment in both work and non-work domains • Preoccupation theory of concealable stigmas (Smart & Wegner, 2000). • Secrecy leads to preoccupation and “Private Hell.” • Identity Disconnects • Fully disclosed in one domain; concealment in another • Incongruent identities lead to role conflict & stress • Very vulnerable to involuntary disclosure • Disclosed partially in both work & nonwork domains • Ongoing state of uncertainty; attributional ambiguity • Identity Integration • Full disclosure across domains • Psychological coherence; reflects & reinforces environment

16. Disclosure Disconnect Propositions • Proposition 4a: Different degrees of disclosure across life domains results in disclosure disconnect states of identity stress and strain. These states are associated with psychological stress, attributional ambiguity and a pressure to establish congruent identities across life domains. • 4b: Individuals who have disclosed their identities across life domains may experience attributional ambiguity; while those who have concealed may experience preoccupation with stigma, acute stress and fear of involuntary disclosure.

17. Future Areas of Inquiry • Typologies that offer a fine-grained approach for classifying invisible stigmas. • Family stigmas? Life experiences vs states? • Risk assessment models for disclosure • How do people make realistic assessments of risks of disclosure? Signal Detection Theory (Green & Swets, 1974)(cf., Feldman Barrett & Swim’s (1998) application to perceptions of prejudice). • Spillover processes between domains • Fear generalization and social support spillover effects. • Community rally against hate crimes: disclose religion at work? Disclosure moved from personal decision to political act? Voice and tempered radicalism (Meyerson, 2001)