Размещено на http://www.allbest.ru/

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 %), M_age = 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.

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, з_p² = .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, з<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .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, з_p² = .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, з<sub>p</sub><sup>2</sup> = .008). In contrast, the intelligence level is significant for perception of moral `dirty work' (F (1, 255) = 9.857, p = .002, з_p² = .037), and marginally significant (F (1, 262) = 3.168, p = .076, з_p² = .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, з_p² = .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, з_p² = .001) and age (F (1, 779) = .026, p = .840, з_p² = .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.

Richard, F. D., Bond, C. F., Jr., & Stokes-Zoota, J. J. (2003). One Hundred Years of Social Psychology Quantitatively Described. Review of General Psychology, 7(4), 331-363.

Richards, J., Encel, J., Shute, R. (2003). The emotional and behavioural adjustment of intellectually gifted adolescents: A multi-dimensional, multi-informant approach. High Ability Studies, 14, 153?164.

Strenze, T. (2007). Intelligence and socioeconomic success: A meta-analytic review of longitudinal research. Intelligence, 35(5), 401-426.

Terry, A. W., Bohnenberger, J. E. (2003). Service learning: Fostering a cycle of caring in our gifted youth. Journal of Secondary Gifted Education, 15, 23?32.

Tsay, C-J.; Banaji, M. R. (2011). Naturals and strivers: Preferences and beliefs about sources of achievement. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(2), 460-465.

Vanwesenbeeck, I. (2001). Another decade of scientific work on sex work: A review of research 1990-2000. Annual Review of Sex Research, 12, 242-290.

Volpato, C., Andrighetto, L., & Baldissarri, C. (2017). Perceptions of Low-Status Workers and the Maintenance of the Social Class Status Quo. Journal of Social Issues, 73(1), 192-210.

Wolffers I., van Beelen N. (2003). Public health and the human rights of sex workers. The Lancet, 361(9373), 1981-1981.

Размещено на Allbest.ru

...