Procedure
Participants were told that this was a research of images about people with different level of abilities and intelligence.
Firstly, respondents filled out the demographics (gender, age and education). Secondly, they answered the question about the innate or acquired nature of intelligence. Thirdly, the participants were randomly divided into 6 experimental conditions. Finally, they completed a manipulation check question and answered the question about the long-term stigmatization. All data were collected via 1KA website (special service for collecting empirical data online).
Measures
Independent variable
The participants were presented with a story about Olga: `Olga is 25 years old, she has been working as a cleaner in one of Moscow's nightclubs for the third year. It is her main job. In her free time Olga likes to meet with friends or watch Tv shows about doctors, since at school she wanted to become a doctor. At school Olga studied very well, was one of the best students and always demonstrated a high level of intelligence and abilities. After school she entered the institute but didn't finish her study'.
The level of intelligence
The level of intelligence of Olga was varied. In the `high intelligence' condition (as in the example above) Olga was described as individual with high intelligence. In the `low intelligence' condition Olga was described as woman who `studied very badly, was one of the worst students and always demonstrated a low level of intelligence and abilities'.
The type of `dirty work'
The type of `dirty work' was also manipulated. In the physical `dirty work' condition Olga was described as a cleaner (as in the example above); in the moral `dirty work' condition Olga was described as a stripper (`she has been working as a stripper for the third year in one of Moscow's nightclubs'); in the social `dirty work' Olga was described as a social worker (`she has been working as a social worker feeding homeless people and helping AIDS patients for the third year').
Manipulation check
To check the effectiveness of intelligence manipulation the participants rated the extent to which such trait as `stupidity' characterized Olga. Item was scored on a 7-point scale from 1 (completely characterizes Olga) to 7 (does not characterize Olga).
Dependent variable
Long-term stigmatization
To evaluate the long-term stigmatization the question about Olga' future - `What will Olga do in 5 years?' was used. Participants chose one of three answers: 1) She will replace the work with an even more non-prestigious; 2) She will remain at the same job or change to another similar job; 3) She will replace the work with a more prestigious one. The higher score indicated the lower long-term stigmatization.
Covariates
Implicit theories about intelligence
We measured the implicit beliefs by the agreement with statement about the nature of intelligence. The presented statement: “The intelligence of an individual are determined by a set of his genes”. Respondents rated their consent from 1 (absolutely disagree) to 7 (absolutely agree) (M = 4.32, SD = 1,33). The high score corresponded to belief in intelligence like fixed and innate trait, and low score in intelligence like acquired and malleable trait (Dweck et al., 1995).
Results
Manipulation check
A manipulation check confirmed that participants in the `high intelligence' condition evaluated Olga's intelligence higher (M = 4.48, SD = 1.55) than participants in the `low intelligence' condition (M = 3.95, SD = 1.45); t (779) = 4.91, p = .000, Cohen d = .35.
Long-term stigmatization
The 2 (level of intelligence: high vs. low) Ч 3 (type of dirty work: physical vs. moral vs. social) analysis of covariance (ANCOVA) was conducted with implicit theories about intelligence as covariate and long-term stigmatization as a dependent variable. Since in our sample young women are predominant, we also include age and gender as covariates.
The results showed that independent variables impact the long-term stigmatization of `dirty workers'. Further analysis showed that hypothesis 1 is confirmed, because the level of the perceived intelligence impact long-term stigmatization of `dirty worker' (F (1, 779) = 13.42, p = .000, зp2 = .016. In particular, participants less stigmatized the dirty workers with high intelligence (M = 2.55, SD = .829) than with low intelligence (M = 2.34, SD = .809); t (779) = 3.57, p = .000, Cohen d = .256.
Figure 1. The degree of long-term stigmatization influencing by three types of `dirty work' and level of the intelligence.
The types of `dirty work' also have impact on long-term stigmatization (F (2, 778) = 26.6, p = .000, зp2 = .062), that confirmed hypothesis 2. Namely, results showed that long-term stigmatization towards social `dirty worker' (M = 2.17, SD = .52) are manifested more, than towards physical `dirty worker' (M = 2.50, SD = .92) and moral `dirty worker' (M = 2.68, SD = .90). Figure 1 shows the effect of intelligence level on long-term stigmatization in different types of `dirty work'.
The interaction between type of dirty work and intelligence was non-significant (F (2, 778) = 1.57, p = .209, зp2 = .004). As the Table 1 shows the level of intelligence doesn't matter for people in situation with performers of physical `dirty work' (F (1, 258) = 2.033, p = .155, зp2 = .008). In contrast, the intelligence level is significant for perception of moral `dirty work' (F (1, 255) = 9.857, p = .002, зp2 = .037), and marginally significant (F (1, 262) = 3.168, p = .076, зp2 = .012) for social `dirty workers'.
Table 1. Means and standard deviations of the type of dirty work and level of intelligence on the long-term stigmatization
|
Type of dirty work |
n |
M |
SD |
Level of intelligence |
n |
M |
SD |
F |
p |
з2 |
|
|
Physical |
260 |
2.50 |
.92 |
High |
130 |
2.58 |
.86 |
2.033 |
.155 |
.008 |
|
|
Low |
130 |
2.42 |
.96 |
||||||||
|
Moral |
257 |
2.68 |
.90 |
High |
131 |
2.85 |
.89 |
9.857 |
.002 |
.037 |
|
|
Low |
126 |
2.50 |
.88 |
||||||||
|
Social |
264 |
2.17 |
.52 |
High |
132 |
2.23 |
.59 |
3.168 |
.076 |
.012 |
|
|
Low |
132 |
2.11 |
.44 |
The implicit theory of intelligence hasn't impact on relationships between independent variables and long-term stigmatization of `dirty worker' (F (1, 799) = .040, p = .842, зp2 = .000). Regardless of the belief in fixed or malleable nature of intelligence, the degree of long-term-stigmatization didn't change that doesn't allow to accept hypothesis 3.
Gender (F (1, 779) = .053, p = .371, зp2 = .001) and age (F (1, 779) = .026, p = .840, зp2 = .000) have no significance in this model.
Discussion
This study aimed of assessing the role of implicit theories about intelligence in relationship between perceived intelligence and prejudice towards people, who perform `dirty work'. We assumed that stigmatization depend on implicit theories about intelligence and type of perceived intelligence.
The third hypothesis in this research was about effect of implicit theories about intelligence. It was suggested, that the incremental theory of intelligence and the entity theory of intelligence mediate the influence of the level of perceived intelligence on prejudices towards `dirty workers'. Surprisingly, no significant differences were found in relationship between variables in the presence and without the presence of such some factor as implicit theories of intelligence. Implicit theories about intelligence don't connect with `dirty workers' stigmatization, regardless of their level of intelligence. This result can be explained by significance of the level of intelligence, not what this intelligence nature is. In other words, if person have high intelligence - it is not important whether he was born with high intelligence or achieved in the learning process, it is important that as a result intelligence is high. The level of intelligence separately can predict stigmatization towards `dirty workers'.
We found that the level of perceived intelligence impact the long-term stigmatization towards `dirty worker'. The most obvious finding to emerge from the analysis is that the high `dirty worker's' intelligence predicts the lower degree of long-term stigmatization towards them than the low perceived intelligence. People expect the same unprestigious career future from a `dirty worker' with the low intelligence, however they can give a chance for more prestigious future to `dirty worker' with the high intelligence. Our results confirmed that the level of intelligence can be a socially desirable trait, and the low intelligence as a stigmatizing trait promotes the development of prejudices. These results corroborate the ideas of Leyens with colleagues (2000), who suggested that the low intelligence can be a stigmatizing trait and can lead to prejudice. Also, researchers defined high intelligence as uniquely human trait, and in contrast, low intelligence as non-uniquely human trait that dehumanizes a person and makes him look like an animal (Leyens et al., 2000; 2001). Low intelligence as a stigmatizing and dehumanizing characteristic increase stigmatization of `dirty workers', and high intelligence as uniquely human trait mitigate this stigmatization.
Previous studies evaluating differences between types of `dirty work' observed vague results with the terms like `evil' or `necessity'. The present results seem to be consistent with other research and show the differences between moral, social and physical types of `dirty work'. The influence of type of `dirty work' on prejudice towards `dirty workers' are confirmed at the present study. People, who perform physical `dirty work' are faced with high degree of prejudice than people, who perform moral `dirty work'. This result may be explained by the fact that the types of `dirty work' can be perceived like outcome of personal choice or like necessity. Ashforth and Kreiner (2014) identified physical `dirty work' like `necessity'. If people perceive a job of stigmatized person more like personal choice, they can expect more prestigious future and changes from this person (for example, `dirty worker'). Perhaps this is influenced by the view that people can change their choice, and that this personal choice affects the fact that a person performs `dirty work'. If person performs `dirty work' because of other factor, for example, necessity, people can estimate his future more like unprestigious and fixed. Another possible explanation for this is that factor of onset-controllability and offset-controllability defined by Bergman and Chalkley (2007). They concluded that this factor influences stickness and prejudice towards `dirty workers'. Onset-controllability shows the degree of person's responsibility for his situation and status, and offset-controllability shows a person's opportunity to correct this situation or status. The different types of `dirty work' can be associated with different degree of onset-controllability and offset-controllability. This idea correlated with explanation about necessity. If person can't control this situation and forced to perform `dirty work', people can perceive this situation like necessity, and if person can control and change it, people can perceive it like personal choice. The most surprising aspect of the data is in the higher degree of stigmatization of social `dirty work'. It can be associated with Russian stereotypes about AIDS, but it requires verification. Level of `dirty worker's' intelligence is matter a little for perception and stigmatization of social `dirty workers'. It means that their stigma can be removed, as in situation with moral `dirty work'. In contrast, level of perceived intelligence didn't impact stigmatization of physical `dirty workers', and their stigmatization remains long-term and strong.
Our results show that there is no relationship between level of perceived intelligence and form of `dirty work. These variables remained independent in this research and individually affect the level of stigmatization. It can be explained by physical `dirty work' that is not associated with the level of intelligence, but it needs to be checked.
Conclusion
In this study, the aim was to assess the role of implicit theories about intelligence in the relationship between the perceived level of intelligence and stigmatization of people performing `dirty work'. However, implicit theories don't associate with stigmatization, regardless of the perceived level of intelligence and type of `dirty work'. These results will be useful for understanding and studying prejudices towards `dirty workers', through the identification of influencing factors and the separation different types of `dirty work'. Researchers of differences between different forms of `dirty work' can note this paper to explain and study various aspects of `dirty work'. Also, this study can be interesting for research about relationships between perceived intelligence and prejudice.
This study has some limitations. First, the results could only reflect the situation in Russia because of the Russian respondents. Second, in this research participated a large number of women, their number was much larger than the number of men. This sample composition could affect the results. In addition, women have lower levels of sexual prejudice than men (Herek & Capitanio, 1999), lower levels of racial prejudice (Qualls et al., 1992) and lower levels of ethnic prejudice (Hoxter & Lester, 1994). Future research should take these limitations into account.
Future direction
Belief in the innateness isn't related with prejudice towards people, who perform `dirty work'. Apparently, more specific implicit theories can have a more specific impact. In particular, Rattan with colleagues (2012) defined theory of universality (many people can have a high intelligence) and uniqueness (few people have a high intelligence). These theories can impact relationship between level of perceived intelligence and stigmatization of `dirty workers': belief in universality of intelligence can increase prejudice and belief in uniqueness can mitigate it like justifying function. It is suggested that these factors are investigated in future studies. There is abundant room for further progress in determining factors that predicts prejudice towards `dirty workers'. Further separation of types of `dirty work' also matters, since this will help to understand different `dirty workers' stigmas.
References
Aronson, J., Fried, C. B., & Good, C. (2002). Reducing the effects of stereotype threat on African American college students by shaping theories of intelligence. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 113-125.
Ashforth B. E., Kreiner G. E. (1999). «How can you do it?»: Dirty work and the challenge of constructing a positive identity. Academy of Management Review, 24(3), 413-434.
Ashforth B. E., Kreiner G. E. (2014). Dirty Work and Dirtier Work: Differences in Countering Physical, Social, and Moral Stigma. Management and Organization Review, 10(1), 81-108.
Barbosa, L. (2008). Domestic workers and pollution in Brazil. Dirt: New geographies of cleanliness and contamination. In B. Campkin & R. Cox (Eds.). London: I. B. Tauris, 25-33.
Belokonenko A. N. (2010). Prostituciya kak social'nyj konstrukt. Nauka i sovremennost', 3(2), 79-84.
Bergman, M. E., Chalkley, K. M. (2007). "Ex" marks a spot: The stickiness of dirty work and other removed stigmas. Journal of Occupational Health Psychology, 12(3), 251-265.
Blackwell, L. S., Trzesniewski, K. H., & Dweck, C. S. (2007). Implicit Theories of Intelligence Predict Achievement Across an Adolescent Transition: A Longitudinal Study and an Intervention. Child Development, 78, 246-263.
Bosmans, K., Mousaid, S., De Cuyper, N., Hardonk, S., Louckx, F., & Vanroelen, C. (2016). Dirty work, dirty worker? Stigmatisation and coping strategies among domestic workers. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 92, 54-67.
Byington, E., & Felps, W. (2010). Why do IQ scores predict job performance?: An alternative, sociological explanation. Research in Organizational Behavior, 30, 175-202.
Chiu, C. Y., Dweck, C. S., Tong, J. Y. Y., & Fu, J. H. Y. (1997a). Implicit theories and conceptions of morality. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(5), 923.
Chiu, C. Y., Hong, Y. Y., & Dweck, C. S. (1997b). Lay dispositionism and implicit theories of personality. Journal of personality and social psychology, 73(1), 19-30.
Coleman, J., Brunell, A., Haugen, I. (2015). Multiple Forms of Prejudice: How Gender and Disability Stereotypes Influence Judgments of Disabled Women and Men. Current Psychology: Research and Reviews, 34(1), 177-189.
Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96(4), 608-630.
Delgado-Acosta E., Betancor V., Rodrнguez-Pйrez A., Delgado N. (2016). Essentialist beliefs about sexuality-related categories. International Journal of Social Psychology, 31, 1-28.
Dion, K. L., & Dion, K. K. (1987). Belief in a just world and physical attractiveness stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52(4), 775-780.
Dufur, M. (1997). Race logic and “being like mike”: Representations of athletes in advertising, 1985-1994. Sociological focus, 30(4), 345-356.
Dweck, C. S., Chiu, C.-y., & Hong, Y.-y. (1995). Implicit theories and their role in judgments and reactions: A world from two perspectives. Psychological Inquiry, 6(4), 267-285.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Buchner, A., & Lang, A.-G. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
Fiske, S. T. (2012). Warmth and competence: Stereotype content issues for clinicians and researchers. Canadian Psychology/Psychologie canadienne, 53(1), 14-20.
Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(6), 878-902.
Gladwell, M. The quarterback problem. Paper presented at the 2002 meeting of the American Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Goffman, E. (1963). Stigma: notes on the management of spoiled identity. Englewood Cliffs, N.J., Prentice-Hall.
Gottfredson, L. S. (1997). Why g matters: The complexity of everyday life. Intelligence, 24(1), 79-132.
Herek, G.M., & Capitanio, J.P. (1999). Sex differences in how heterosexuals think about lesbians and gay men: Evidence from survey context effects. Journal of Sex Research, 36, 348-360.
Hoxter, A. L., & Lester, D. (1994). Gender differences in prejudice. Perceptual and Motor Skills, 79(3f), 1666-1666.
Hughes, E. C. (1958). Men and their work. Glencoe, IL: Free Press.
King, E. J., Maman, S., Bowling, J. M., Moracco, K. E., Dudina, V. (2013). The influence of stigma and discrimination on female sex workers' access to hiv services in St. Petersburg, Russin. AIDS and Behavior, 17(8), 2597-2603.
Kozhevina E. V. (2012). Rabotniki kladbishch kak professiya: aspekty povsednevnosti. In P.V. Romanova, E.R. YArskoj-Smirnovoj. (Eds.), Antropologiya professij: granicy zanyatosti v ehpohu nestabil'nosti. (pp.271-231). OOO «Variant», CSPGI.
Langlois, J.H. (1986). From the eye of the beholder to behavioral reality: The development of social behaviors and social relations as a function of physical attractiveness. In Herman, C.P., Zanna, M.P., Higgins, E.T., (Eds.), Physical appearance, stigma, and social behavior: The Ontario symposium (pp. 23-51), Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum. Google Scholar
Levy, S. R., Stroessner, S. J., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Stereotype formation and endorsement: The role of implicit theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1421-1436.
Leyens, J.-P., Paladino, P. M., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Vaes, J., Demoulin, S., Rodriguez-Perez, A., & Gaunt, R. (2000). The emotional side of prejudice: The attribution of secondary emotions to ingroups and outgroups. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4(2), 186-197.
Leyens, J.-P., Rodriguez-Perez, A., Rodriguez-Torres, R., Gaunt, R., Paladino, M.-P., Vaes, J., & Demoulin, S. (2001). Psychological essentialism and the differential attribution of uniquely human emotions to ingroups and outgroups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 31(4), 395-411.
Phillimore, J. & Goodson, L. (2006). Problem or opportunity? Asylum seekers, refugees, employment and social exclusion in deprived urban areas. Urban Studies 43(10), 1715-1736.
Qualls, R. C., Cox, M. B., & Schehr, T. L. (1992). Racial attitudes on campus: Are there gender differences? Journal of College Student Development, 33(6), 524-530.
Rattan, A., & Dweck, C. S. (2010). Who confronts prejudice? The role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice. Psychological Science, 21(7), 952-959.
Rattan, A., Savani, K., Naidu, N. V. R., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). Can everyone become highly intelligent? Cultural differences in and societal consequences of beliefs about the universal potential for intelligence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 103(5), 787-803.
Regan, P.C., Joshi, A. (2003). Ideal partner preferences among adolescents. Social Behavior and Personality, 31(1), 13-20.