Internalizing the closet: concealment heightens the cognitive distinction between public and private selves.

The present studies are the first in which social psychological methods were used to test the popular claim that the experience of concealing a stigmatized social identity leads to a "divided self." For people with concealable stigmas, concealment in public settings makes the public-private dimension of self-expression particularly salient, leading them to organize self-relevant information along this dimension. The result is a strengthened cognitive distinction between public and private aspects of the self, what we have termed public-private schematization. We developed and tested a measure of the cognitive accessibility of the distinction between public and private self-schemas by measuring how quickly participants sorted trait attributes into self-in-public (e.g., self-at-work) and self-in-private (e.g., self-at-home). People with more accessible distinct public and private self-schemas should be faster at categorizing trait attributes into public- and private-self aspects than those with more integrated public and private self-schemas. Relative to people without such identities, people with concealable stigmas (Study 1a, sexual orientation; Study 1b, religiosity at a secular college), show greater public-private schematization. This schematization is linked to concealment (Study 2) and to the experimental activation of concealable versus conspicuous stigmatized identities (Study 3). Implications of distinct public and private self-schemas for psychological well-being are explored in Studies 4 and 5. Two different measures of distress-perceived social stress (Study 4) and depressive symptoms (Study 5)-provided evidence showing that the accessibility of the distinction between public and private self-schemas accounted for the association of concealment on heightened distress. Implications for research on concealment and self-structure are discussed.

Immunizing against prejudice: effects of disease protection on attitudes toward out-groups.

Contemporary interpersonal biases are partially derived from psychological mechanisms that evolved to protect people against the threat of contagious disease. This behavioral immune system effectively promotes disease avoidance but also results in an overgeneralized prejudice toward people who are not legitimate carriers of disease. In three studies, we tested whether experiences with two modern forms of disease protection (vaccination and hand washing) attenuate the relationship between concerns about disease and prejudice against out-groups. Study 1 demonstrated that when threatened with disease, vaccinated participants exhibited less prejudice toward immigrants than unvaccinated participants did. In Study 2, we found that framing vaccination messages in terms of immunity eliminated the relationship between chronic germ aversion and prejudice. In Study 3, we directly manipulated participants' protection from disease by having some participants wash their hands and found that this intervention significantly influenced participants' perceptions of out-group members. Our research suggests that public-health interventions can benefit society in areas beyond immediate health-related domains by informing novel, modern remedies for prejudice.

Perceptions of immigrants: modifying the attitudes of individuals higher in social dominance orientation.

Previous research has demonstrated that directly challenging people's beliefs about immigrants may result in even stronger anti-immigration attitudes, especially among those higher in social dominance orientation (SDO). In addition, inducing the perception that immigrants are part of a larger ingroup does not modify immigration attitudes. In three studies, the article explores conditions that can reduce prejudice toward immigrants among those high in SDO. Studies 1 and 2 demonstrate that focusing attention on group identity maintains prejudice, whereas focusing attention on others reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Study 3 extends the findings of the first two studies by demonstrating that focusing attention on others in a way that induces perception of similarity with immigrants maintains negative attitudes toward immigrants, whereas focusing on individual values reduces prejudice among those higher in SDO. Implications for how prejudice could be reduced among those high in SDO through de-emphasis on group identity are discussed.