Objective self-awareness and stigma: implications for persons with visible disabilities

Journal of Rehabilitation, April-June, 2004 by Andrew A. Phemister, Nancy M. Crewe

To elaborate, it has been argued that during any given situation where too much or too little attention is directed at one person (e.g., staring at or ignoring the person altogether), then that person's comfort and anxiety levels could be dramatically affected causing embarrassment and even shame (Buss, A. H., 1980; cf. Goffman, 1963). For a person with a visible disability, such attention may be a daily experience and a constant reminder that he or she "is" different (e.g., uses a wheelchair). Social Darwinism (Spencer, 1872) is implied in social appraisals like these because, invariably, when one person feels that he or she does not "fit in" (or must work harder in order to do so) then a social hierarchy is imposed. Social Darwinism is characterized by the phrase "survival of the fittest" and promotes the ideology that inferior races exist relative to superior races. For instance, in their controversial book, The Bell Curve, Herrnstein and Murray argued that social inferiority is a direct consequence of genetic inferiority (1994). In other words, for whatever reason, some people are "naturally" meant to be inferior. Social Darwinism has received little support but is still reflected in the attitudes and behaviors of our society today (i.e., stigma, prejudice, and discrimination).

Several experiments have revealed that feeling self-focused and self-aware in the presence of others can greatly impact a person's sense of physical attractiveness and self-evaluations (Thornton & Moore, 1993), the expression of their personal beliefs (Chang, Tai Hau, & Mei Gou 2001; Scheier, 1980; Wicklund & Duval, 1971), their level of shyness and social dysfunction (Bruch, Hamer, & Heimberg, 1995), and their individuation and feeling uncomfortably distinct from others (Ickes, Layden, & Barnes, 1978). It is therefore conceivable that the social appraisals of a person's difference, vis-a-vis stigma and causal attributions, could impact the adjustment process of an individual with a visible disability in ways we are not yet sure of, but are very important to understand.

In contrast, Buss (1980) argued that most people who experience increased self-awareness during social situations generally would not experience any ill effects (e.g., increased anxiety levels), presumably because they have not experienced the stigma that is often associated with having a visible disability (cf. Bruch, Hamer, & Heimberg, 1995). Yet, what seems pivotal is the extent to which the inducement of OSA may lead the individual to interpret the negative appraisals as being realistically based. In other words, can one's personal beliefs about oneself stand up against the perception that others believe differently--and for how long?

Implications for Objective Self-Awareness and Stigma

In a discussion on stigma effects and self-esteem, Crocker and Quinn (2000) argued that feelings of self-worth, self-regard, and self-respect are not stable characteristics. Instead, they are constructed in-situ as a function of the connotative meanings that a person attributes to a particular situation (cf. Heatherton & Polivy, 1991; Phemister, 2002; Sommers & Crocker, 1999). Crocker and Quinn asserted that what people bring to different situations are their sets of beliefs, attitudes, and values, and, when something negative (or positive) occurs, then self-esteem is subsequently affected by the meaning that they attribute to those events. The presumption here is that objective self-awareness and personal meanings may be phenomenologically linked. To illustrate, being turned down for both a date and a job will likely hold different implications for a person depending on which meant more to them. That is, the more something is desired by a person (e.g., getting a job), then the more meaningful it may be. Likewise, the more meaningful something is, the more he or she may feel objectively self-aware about appearing and performing in such a way that the event has a satisfactory outcome (e.g., being nicely dressed and trying to conceal an attribute that is believed will hinder the chances of being hired). But, if the person is rejected, then corresponding with the greater meaning ascribed to the situation, he or she could also experience a more heartfelt disappointment. Thus, for example, the individual may find it easier to invite another person on a date than to interview for another job and, as a result, perhaps avoid further interviews.