[Catalyst 2017]

LAZY
woman
HEALTHY
intelligent
I’m not
biased.
WHITE
indicated on average a higher perceived
negativity and lower perceived employer
interest.1 In another study evaluating
obesity-related stigma, results showed that
obese individuals—in this case subjects
wearing obese prosthetic suits—experience
similarly negative interactions. 2
While many of her studies evaluated biases
in seeking employment, Dr. Hebl also
explored the presence of interpersonal
discrimination against lesser-known groups
that experience bias. One surprising finding
indicated negative stigmatization against
cancer survivors. 3 In other studies, the team
found patterns relating to stereotypicality;
this relatively new phenomena explores
the lessened interpersonal discrimination
against those who deviate from the
stereotypical prototype of their minority
group, i.e. a more light-skinned Hispanic
A holistic review of her
research reveals a pattern of
discrimination against stigmatized
groups on an implicit level.
male. 4 A holistic review of her research
reveals a pattern of discrimination against
stigmatized groups on an implicit level. Once
researchers like Dr. Hebl find these patterns,
they can investigate them in the lab by
further isolating variables to develop a more
refined and widely-applicable conclusion.
What can make more subtle forms of bias
so detrimental is the ambiguity surrounding
them. When someone discriminates against
another in a clear and explicit form, one can
easily attribute the behavior to the person’s
biases. On the other hand, when this bias is
perceived in the form of qualitative behavior,
such as shortened conversations and body
language, it raises questions regarding
the person’s intentions. In these cases,
the victim often internalizes the negative
treatment, questioning the effect of traits
that they cannot control—be it race, sexual
orientation, or physical appearance. This
degree of uncertainty raises conflict and
tension between differing groups, thus
potentially hindering progress in today’s
increasingly diverse workplaces, schools, and
universities. 5
Dr. Hebl knew that exploring the presence
of this tension between individuals was
only the first step. “One of the most
exciting aspects of
social psychology is
that just learning about
these things makes
you inoculated against
them,” she said. Thus
emerges the search
for practical solutions
involving education
and reformation of
conventional practices in the workplace.
Her current work looks at three primary
methods: The first is acknowledging biases
on an individual level. This strategy involves
individuation, or the recognition of one’s
own stigma and subsequent compensation
for it. 6 The second involves implementing
organizational methods in the workplace,
such as providing support for stigmatized
groups and awareness training. 7 The
third, which has the most transformative
potential, is the use of research to support
reformation of policies that could protect
these individuals.
“I won’t rest…until we have equity,” she
affirmed when asked about the future of
her work. For Dr. Hebl, the ultimate goal is
education and change. Human interactions
are incredibly complex, unpredictable, and
difficult to quantify. But they influence
our daily decisions and actions, ultimately
impacting how we view ourselves and
others. Social psychology research suggests
that biases, whether we realize it or not, are
involved in the choices we make every day:
from whom we decide to speak to whom we
decide to work with. Dr. Hebl saw this and
decided to do something about it. Her work
brings us to the complex source of these
disparities and suggests that understanding
their foundations can lead to a real,
desirable change.
Works Cited
1. Hebl, M. R.; Foster, J. B.; Mannix, L. M.; Dovidio, J. F.
Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 2002, 28 (6), 815–825.
2. Hebl, M. R.; Mannix, L. M. Pers. Soc. Psychol. B. 2003,
29 (1), 28–38.
3. Martinez, L. R.; White, C. D.; Shapiro, J. R.; Hebl, M. R.
J. Appl. Psychol. 2016, 101 (1), 122–128.
4. Hebl, M. R.; Williams, M. J.; Sundermann, J. M.; Kell,
H. J.; Davies, P. G. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 2012, 48 (6),
1329–1335.
5. Szymanski, D. M.; Gupta, A. J. Couns. Psychol. 2009, 56
(2), 300–300.
6. Singletary, S. L.; Hebl, M. R. J. Appl. Psychol. 2009, 94
(3), 797–805.
7. Martinez, L. R.; Ruggs, E. N.; Sabat, I. E.; Hebl, M. R.;
Binggeli, S. J. Bus. Psychol. 2013, 28 (4), 455–466.
Images from freepik.com
DESIGN BY Kaitlyn Xiong
EDITED BY Alicia Leong
CATALYST | 55