ПРАВИТЕЛЬСТВО РОССИЙСКОЙ ФЕДЕРАЦИИ
ФЕДЕРАЛЬНОЕ ГОСУДАРСТВЕННОЕ АВТОНОМНОЕ
ОБРАЗОВАТЕЛЬНОЕ УЧРЕЖДЕНИЕ
ВЫСШЕГО ОБРАЗОВАНИЯ
«НАЦИОНАЛЬНЫЙ ИССЛЕДОВАТЕЛЬСКИЙ УНИВЕРСИТЕТ
“ВЫСШАЯ ШКОЛА ЭКОНОМИКИ”»
Факультет социальных наук
Выпускная квалификационная работа
Имплицитные теории интеллета и предубеждения к людям, выполняющим «грязную работу»
Терскова Мария
Москва 2018
There is a growing body of literature that recognizes the importance of implicit theories about intelligence in areas associated with intelligence, abilities and motivation. Implicit theories about intelligence can play an important role in manifestation of prejudice toward stigmatized groups, in particular, people performing `dirty work'. `Dirty workers' represents a group of low-status workers, who perform physical, moral or social `dirty work'. `Dirty work' isn't prestigious and puts `spots' on performers' body, morality or relationship with other people. These professions can go against the accepted ethical norms and morality, connect with physical filth or death, and communicate with other negative stigmatized groups or be in slave position in relation to others. `Dirty workers' are stigmatized by society and faced with discrimination towards themselves, and it is necessary to explain the nature of this stigmatization and influencing on stigmatization factors. These possible factors can define the stigmatization of `dirty workers': level of perceived intelligence, implicit theories of intelligence and types of `dirty work'. Professional activities are varied in different forms of `dirty work', therefore, performers of different types of `dirty work' can be perceived in different ways. Differences between forms of `dirty work' can impact stigmatization of `dirty workers'. Understanding of stigmatization mechanism can help to influence prejudices towards people performing `dirty work' and help them to escape discrimination.
Implicit theories about intelligence can be an important aspect of prejudice anticipating. There are two ways of intelligence perception. Firstly, the entity theory of intelligence, which refers to an individual's belief that the intelligence is a fixed trait. And secondly, the incremental theory of intelligence proposing that intelligence is malleable characteristic which can be improved through hard work. The study considers the intelligence as a stigmatizing and dehumanizing trait (in situation with low level of intelligence) and as a socially desirable trait (high intelligence accordingly). This characteristic can predict the prejudices towards `dirty workers', if people can estimate the `dirty workers'' intelligence. The current research assumed that the level of perceived intelligence influences stigmatization and prejudice towards `dirty workers'. Very little is known about the entity and incremental theories of intelligence in impact on stigmatization. Possibly, implicit theories about intelligence and its consequences are an important but understudied. Belief in the innate and fixed high intelligence and belief in the malleable and acquired high intelligence can have a different influence on relationship between `dirty worker's' intelligence level and stigmatization. So, it can be the important factor of prejudice predicting.
This paper highlights the importance of implicit theories about intelligence in stigmatization of `dirty workers'. The main aim of our study was research the role of implicit theories about intelligence in the relationship between the perceived level of intelligence and stigmatization of people performing `dirty work'. Other objectives of this research are to determine influence of the perceived intelligence level on stigmatization of `dirty workers' and differences in stigmatization process between moral, social and physical `dirty work'.
In accordance with the purposes of the study the following tasks have been set: интеллект грязный работа предубеждение
- to study implicit theories about intelligence and intelligence in the context of stigmatization of `dirty workers';
- to create the research plan and to conduct research on a sufficient sample;
- to determine the role of implicit theories about intelligence in relationship between the perceived intelligence level and stigmatization of `dirty workers';
- to confirm mitigating influence of high intelligence as a positively trait;
- to confirm increasing influence of low intelligence as a stigmatizing characteristic;
- to identify differences between social, moral and physical `dirty work';
- to confirm impact of different `dirty work' types on stigmatization of `dirty workers';
- to define the future perspectives of the research.
In particular, this study will examine three main hypotheses:
H1. Perceived level of intelligence impact the long-term stigmatization towards `dirty workers', particularly, the high intelligence of `dirty worker' will decrease it.
H2. The form of `dirty work' will impact on long-term stigmatization, particularly, the physical `dirty work' is more stigmatized in compared with other `dirty worker'.
H3. Implicit theories of intelligence mediate the relationship between the level of perceived intelligence and long-term stigmatization of `dirty workers'. Particularly, people, who estimate `dirty worker' with high intelligence and believe in the innate nature of intelligence, will be demonstrated the lower degree of prejudice towards `dirty worker' than if they believe that intelligence is a malleable trait.
The study was conducted in the form of a survey, with data being gathered via special service for collecting empirical data online. The participants are showed a story about `dirty worker' including such variables as type of `dirty work' and `dirty worker's' level of intelligence. Also, the survey measures the belief in the innate and fixed or in the acquiring and malleable nature of intelligence, and long-term stigmatization of `dirty worker'.
Therefore, this study makes a major contribution to research on `dirty workers' stigmatization by demonstrating interaction with level of perceived intelligence, form of `dirty work' and implicit theories about intelligence.
This paper has been divided into four parts. The first parts deals with intelligence considering like socially desirable or stigmatizing characteristic and gives an understanding of the perception of intelligence. The second part describes `dirty workers', stigmatization of `dirty workers' and three types of `dirty work'. The third section of this paper determines our research, its questions and hypotheses. The forth research part shows methods and measures of this study, describing a process of survey conducting. The fifth section presents results and confirmations and refutations of the hypotheses. The sixth part of this study analyses and discusses the results of present research, and the final section gives a brief summary and critique of the findings and identifies limitations and areas for future research.
Keywords: perceived intelligence, implicit theories of intelligence, prejudice, `dirty work', stigmatization.
Implicit theories of intelligence
The studies showed that people most often share one of the two implicit theories about intelligence: the entity theory or incremental theory of intelligence. The entity theory of intelligence refers to an individual's belief that the intelligence is a fixed trait. In contrast, the incremental theory of intelligence proposed that intelligence is a malleable trait which can be improved through hard work (Dweck et al., 1995). There are a considerable number of published studies describing the role of implicit theories of the intelligence in motivation and productivity of individuals who have confidence in the innate or acquired intelligence. As argued by Blackwell with colleagues (2007), students who believed in the acquired intelligence had greater motivation than students who considered intelligence an innate and unchanging characteristic.
There is an unambiguous relationship between belief in innateness and prejudices. The roles of belief in the innateness have been studied in areas associating with talent and abilities. The tendency to recognize talented, not reaching, was noted in different studies (Richards et al., 2003; Terry & Bohnenberger, 2003). Tsay and Banaji (2011) argue that knowledge about the innate nature of a pianist's talent influences the evaluation of his play by experts. The melodies proposed to the experts were played by the same pianist, but the descriptions given to them differed: one - about a musician having an innate ability and the other - about a perseverant and hard-working one. The results of the research showed that the pianist is considered more outstanding if experts believe that he has innate musical abilities. This belief in the innate nature related to people's beliefs and judgements about others.
This view is supported by Chiu with colleagues (1997a) who write that individuals' moral beliefs are related to their implicit theories about social-moral reality. In particular, they concluded that beliefs in the fixed reality increase moral fundamental beliefs. Similarly, Chiu with colleagues (1997b) found that implicit theories about personal attributes impact the degree of behavioral predictions and inferences from behavior. As predicted, belief in the innate nature leads to making stronger behavioral predictions and stronger inferences from behavior.
In addition to influence on beliefs about others, innate in the innateness (entity theory) affects stereotypes and prejudices towards people. Levy with colleagues (1998) maintains that people believing in the fixed human attributes are demonstrated higher level of stereotypes about ethnic and occupational groups than people believing in the malleable nature. In the same vein, Rattan and Dweck (2010) concluded that the entity theory about personality predicts lower degree of confront prejudice.
In view of all that has been mentioned so far, one may suppose that belief in the innate and fixed nature of something associated with prejudices towards out-groups. It can be the entity theory about personal attributes and behavioral predictions with stereotypes, or the entity theory about personality and prejudices. Based on these data we can assume that implicit theories about intelligence influence relationship between level of intelligence and prejudice. However, belief in the innate and fixed low intelligence and belief in the malleable low intelligence differ in their influence on stigmatization. In situations with low intelligence belief in the innate nature can increase prejudice as in situations with personalities and stereotypes. But high intelligence considers as talent and can mitigate prejudice towards its owners.
Intelligence as a predictor of social status
There are a number of signs that positively or negatively stigmatize a person. Goffman (1963) denoted stigma as a mark designating the person as `spoiled', compromised or less than fully human. Most often stigma based on abnormal and shameful characteristics or certain group membership (e.g., sexual orientation, weight). Crocker and Major (1989, p. 609) define stigmatized social groups as `social categories about which others hold negative attitudes, stereotypes, and beliefs, or which, on average, receive disproportionately poor interpersonal or economic outcomes relative to members of the society at large because of discrimination against members of the social category'. At the same time individuals can be positively stigmatized. For example such characteristic as beauty associates with a `beautiful-is-good' halo effect (Dion & Dion, 1987; Langlois, 1986). This effect means that socially desirable characteristics, successful life outcomes and high intelligence more often ascribed to attractive people than to unattractive.
In modern society a high intelligence also is perceived as a positively stigmatizing and socially desirable trait. Gottfredson (1997) argued that high intelligence leads to success in educational institutions and work, provides more opportunities for achievements and life success. It is expected that people with high intelligence will do their job better, then people with low intelligence. IQ-tests are used to sort students into different groups and to hire the best candidate for universities and employers. People with high intelligence get greater access to development resources and privileges, that leads to acquiring additional opportunities and better work performance (Byington & Felps, 2010).
For selecting candidates for certain positions various companies evaluate an individuals' intelligence, because high intelligence is considered as an important characteristic of efficiency (for example, company `Gumanitarnye tekhnologii', `DB Best Technologies'). There are various communities where members are selected according to their level of intelligence (for example, Mensa). Mensa is the most well-known organization for people with a high IQ. This organization participates in programs for gifted children, develops literacy and provides scholarships. People with high intelligence also receive peculiar privileges in the interpersonal sphere. Regan and Joshi (2003) showed that the level of intelligence is an important basis of romantic partner choosing process. In general, high intelligence is associated with socio-economic success, high social status and prestigious work (Strenze, 2007).
In contrast, the low intelligence is a negative stigmatizing trait that could be a basis of stereotypes and prejudice towards certain groups (e.g., racial group) (Leyens et al., 2000). For example, Black students receive lower grades than White students, even when enter college with identical test results because of stereotypes about Black people's low intellectual abilities (Aronson et al., 2002). Dufur (1997) noted that advertisements presented black athletes as successful because of physical abilities, while white athletes are presented as successful because of hard work, leadership qualities and intelligence. Other groups are also subject to prejudice and discrimination, for example, people with disabilities and gender groups. According to Fiske (2012) women are perceived as more incompetent than men, and the same situation is observed in the comparison of feminine gay male image subtypes with men. The competence model included several qualities, one of which was the intelligence. Disabled people are estimated as non-competent in this model (Fiske, 2002). Also, people are more prejudiced towards intellectually disabled women, then physically disabled women (Coleman et al., 2015). Low intelligence is associated with poverty, low social status and `dirty work' as a type of work that degrading a human dignity (Hughes, 1958). Ruisel (1996) presented cluster of professions with main dividing criterion: one - with mental dominance, other - with physical dominance. Professions without mental dominance have the low social status.
`Dirty work' and double stigmatization
According to Ashforth and Kreiner (1999) `dirty work' has different forms: physical, social and moral. Professions are directly associated with dirt or death like cleaners, proctologists, undertakers attributed to the physical `dirty work'. The social `dirty work' involves working with stigmatized groups of people (for example, AIDS patients or drug addicts) or serving other `slave' work (for example, maid or shoe cleaner). To the performers of the moral `dirty work' can be related people, who violated the accepted ethical, moral norms and values - namely exotic dancers, casino managers and lawyers defending killers. Bosmans with colleagues (2016) established that `dirty workers' associate with low social and professional status, and employers often perceive domestic worker as a slave (especially, physical and social `dirty workers'). Low-status workers are faced with negative stereotypes and dehumanizing images towards themselves (Volpato et al., 2017), and it leads to discrimination of `dirty workers'.
There is a large volume of published studies describing prejudices and discrimination towards `dirty workers'. King with colleagues (2013) claims that 30% of prostitutes were denied medical treatment, and 58% of sex-workers didn't seek medical treatment because they were afraid of either a refusal of any treatment or a mistreatment. It has been demonstrated that sex-workers are discriminated and oppressed (Wolffers & van Beelen, 2003). Surveys such as that conducted by Barbosa (2008), have shown that not only sex-workers are victims of discrimination and prejudice. Brazilian maids are required to maintain high standards of cleanliness, however their clothes are not washed with the clothes of other people in the house. Sometimes `dirty workers' and their activities are associated with crime. In an analysis of mass media materials, Belokonenko (2010) found that prostitution has divided into two discourses: `deviant behavior' and `activities related to organized crime'. In the same vein, Kozhevina (2012) noted that the image of a cemetery worker is often mentioned in a criminal context. Undertakers are associated in mass media with crimes, hidden serial killers, thieves, vandals and members of other criminal `professions'.
`Dirty workers' are subject to long-term stigmatization. `Dirty workers' are stigmatized and have a certain social self-esteem. Most people believe that workers choose their work, and the choice of `dirty work' says a lot about `dirty workers'. Stigmatization continues even if they have left this job. `Dirty workers' can have problems with joining to other groups and looking for a new job, as a result, places of `dirty work' seem more open and tolerant to `dirty workers' past and themselves (Bergman & Chalkley, 2007).
`Dirty work' associated with low intelligence (Hughes, 1958), and low intelligence leads to negative stigmatization. At the same time, the connection between performing `dirty work' and low intelligence is an illusory correlation. Often people with high intelligence are temporary forced to do some type of `dirty work' (for example, refugees), or they do it voluntarily (for example, do downshifting and choose an unrewarding but favorite work). Refugees with worthy skills and qualifications often are unemployed, and those who are employed are working in low-skilled jobs (Phillimore & Goodson, 2006).
It is important to note that people with the low level of intelligence can be stigmatized twice. Firstly, because of negative characteristics associated with the low level of intelligence, and secondly, with the expectation that they will perform one of the forms of `dirty work'.
The hypotheses
The main aim of our study was research the role of implicit theories about intelligence in the relationship between the perceived level of intelligence and stigmatization of people performing `dirty work'.
High and low level of intelligence are the opposite stigmatizing traits. High intelligence can be perceived like socially desirable trait, and low intelligence can be perceived like stigmatizing trait, so, we assume influence of this trait and formulate the first hypothesis:
H1. Perceived level of intelligence impact the long-term stigmatization towards `dirty workers', particularly, the high intelligence of `dirty worker' will decrease it.
Different types of `dirty work' are perceived in different ways. Ashforth and Kreiner (2014) described additional difference between the moral and two other form of `dirty work': the physical and social forms are seen as a necessity, and not as `evil' while the moral form is perceived more as `evil', and not necessity. It makes sense to consider the influence of certain form of `dirty work' on performers of this form of `dirty work'. It has been assumed that people whose work is associated with filth are dehumanized to a greater extent (Volpato et al., 2017). In other words, people create negative stereotypes and the dehumanization view of the performers of physical `dirty work'. Low-status manual workers often associated with different animalistic metaphors and perceived like lacking the unique human characteristics. In contrast, performers of moral `dirty work' can be less perceived as an instrument or animal, and they can be associated with human characteristics more, then performers of other types of `dirty work'. Moral `dirty work' places a `stain' on the morality of person, and not on the body, and morality is already a human quality. Various types of `dirty work' can differ in people's perception and prejudice towards these `dirty workers'', therefore, the second hypothesis was formulated:
H2. The form of `dirty work' will impact on long-term stigmatization, particularly, the physical `dirty work' is more stigmatized in compared with other `dirty worker'.
We assume that implicit theories about intelligence can influence prejudice towards `dirty workers'. For example, belief in the innate talent or ability of a person can influence on prejudice towards this person. Gladwell (2002) suggested that the American community supports the naturalness and innate nature of talent and abilities. People with high abilities and talent are attributed various positive qualities. In our case belief in the fixed and innate intelligence or in the malleable and acquired intelligence can be related with relationship between the perceived intelligence and prejudice towards `dirty workers'. But innate high intelligence and innate low intelligence are perceived differently. Innate and fixed high intelligence can be perceived like innate talent, which mitigating stigmatization, and innate and fixed low intelligence can increase the stigmatization. As a result, we formulate third research hypothesis:
H3. Implicit theories of intelligence mediate the relationship between the level of perceived intelligence and long-term stigmatization of `dirty workers'. Particularly, people, who estimate `dirty worker' with high intelligence and believe in the innate nature of intelligence, will be demonstrated the lower degree of prejudice towards `dirty worker' than if they believe that intelligence is a malleable trait.
Method
A priori power analysis
We conducted an a priori power analysis by G*Power 3.1 program (Faul, Erdfelder, Buchner, & Lang, 2009) to compute the required sample size with sufficient power (1-в > 0.80). Based on Richard, Bond, and Stokes-Zoota (2003) results (`Intelligent people are popular' r = .10) the total sample size was estimated at 720 participants, so about 120 participants in each condition.
Participants and design
781 Russians (592 women (75,8 %), Mage = 19,35, SD = 2,78), were randomly allocated to one of the six conditions: 2 (level of intelligence: high vs. low) Ч 3 (type of dirty work: physical vs. moral vs. social) in a between-subjects design.