Coping With Prejudice: Personal Relationship Partners as Sources of Socioemotional Support for Stigmatized Individuals

Stanley O Gaines, Jr[*]

In the not away article, I consider the behavior of nonstigmatized versus stigmatized perceivers toward stigmatized target individuals in personal relationships. First, I argue that nonstigmatized ones generally are less likely to go into into personal relationships with or to give affection and defer to as socioemotional support to stigmatized somebodys than are other stigmatized somebodys Second, Ipresent a variety of facilitators and barriers to stigmatized persons' supportive function as well as factors that might make nonstigmatized somebodys more likely than stigmatized by sons as sources of socioemotional support for stigmatized partners. Directions for futurity research are discussed.

According to Goffman (1963) individuals with discredited identities are stigmatized through virtue of belonging to socially devalued clusters whose distinguishing characteristics are readily visible (eg ones of color, heterosexual women) and face the constant task of managing tension when in public, whereas individuals with discreditable identities are stigmatized by means of virtue of belonging to socially devalued collections whose distinguishing characteristics are not readily visible (eg Jewish individuals gay men) and face the constant task of managing information when in public. more [i]or[/i] less individuals possess discredited as well as discreditable identities (eg White lesbians, Muslim men of color) and arguably enact the greatest in quantity complex and difficult roles of all stigmatized ones The chronic stress and anxiety that follow from constant acting demands from day to day can take a psychological toll on even the healthiest of stigmatized individuals, especially when those stigmatized individuals must strive to maintain self-love (i.e., emotional acceptance of oneself) and self-sufficiency (i.e., social acceptance of oneself) while responding to verbal or physical attacks from nonstigmatized individuals.

Stigmatized individuals rencounter indirect as well as direct threats to their self-love and self-complacency For example, mass media of that kind as television and motion pictures routinely engage in "blaming the victim" by the agency of portraying stigmatized individuals as incompetent and as suffering from lacks in personality and/or intellect. upon the one hand, stigmatized individuals do not necessarily accept negative societal images of themselves in a passive or uncritical manner. upon the other hand, such negative images perpetuated through the entertainment industry and other societal institutions can be thus pervasive that stigmatized individuals may find it difficult to avoid internalizing the images to more [i]or[/i] less extent, especially during child head cover In turn, to the expansion that they internalize negative stereotype about them selve and their companion ingroup members, stigmatized individuals' belief that they are worthy of have affection for and esteem may be undermined.

Of course, many stigmatized individuals actively lay aside negative societal stereotypes concerning themselves and ingroup members. Nevertheless, flat when stigmatized individuals are well upon their way toward self-actualization, they discover at times that their attempts at impression management (i.e., persuading on-lookers to view the actors as the actors wish to be viewed) fail to debar stereo typing, prejudice, or discriminatory behavior directed toward them by the agency of certain observers. Over time, failure at impression management can lead to doubts about the accuracy of self-perceptions. When actors begin to doubt whether they verily know themselves, actors' entire selve may become threatened.

The near article addresses the extent to which stigmatized individuals are likely to receive socioemotional support within the connected thought [i]or[/i] thoughts of personal relation ships with others who may or may not be stigmatized along the same social dimensions. Drawing on Foa and Foa (1974), I define socioemotional support as the range of behaviors [i]or[/i] part of to the other which one person conveys have affection for (i.e., affection or emotional acceptance) and reckon (i.e., respect or social acceptance) toward another someone and, thus, attempts to fulfill the other person's greatest in quantity basic psychological needs. I begin with the assumption that nonstigmatized someones are less likely than are stigmatized somebodys to serve as sources of socioemotional support for stigmatized partners. upon the basis of this assumption, I identify sum of two units major factors (i.e., willingness to come into into relationships with stigmatized ones and barriers to socioemotional support) that guard to minimize nonstigmatized persons' supportive function along with several factors that may improve the not divisible by 2s of nonstigmatized persons providing support for stigmatized partners. Afterward, I not absent a variety of facilitators and barriers to stigmatized persons' supportive function as well as factors that might make nonstigmatized ones more likely than stigmatized somebodys to provide support for stigmatized someones I view all of the factors influencing variation across persons' giving of socioemotional support as limit together by Goffman's (1959, 1963) metaphor of social interaction as stage performance; furthermore, I view the factors in question as crucial to below standing relationship-level outcomes (e.g., relationship satisfaction and stability) and individual-level issues (e.g., self-love and self-esteem) for stigmatized partners.