The Effects of Collective SelfEsteem on Individual SelfEsteem in an Online Sample with Varying Dimen

1
The Effects of Collective Self-Esteem on
Individual Self-Esteem in an Online Sample with
Varying Dimensions of Body Modification

• Julie DiPopolo, Fordham University
• Dr. Tiffany Yip, Fordham University
• Fordham Council on Applied Psychometrics (FCAP)
• Conference
  
• 6/27/2008

2
What is Body Modification?

• Basic definition Any change made to the human
  body
• Painting, adornment, modification (Sekelman,
  2003)
• Ritual-type behaviors and practices
• For the purposes of this study
• Voluntary modifications tattoos, piercings,
  scarification, branding, surgical procedures

3
Social Stigma

• Stigmatized group a set of individuals who are
  members in a social category about which others
  hold negative attitudes, stereotypes, and
  beliefs, or whom receive disproportionately poor
  interpersonal or negative outcomes because of
  discrimination (Crocker Major, 1989)
• Having a stigmatized trait results in the
  possibility that one will be the target of
  prejudice and discrimination (Goffman, 1963
  Jones et al., 1984)
• Highly stigmatized groups will experience more
  instances of discrimination.
• The effects have been shown to be stressful and
  capable of harming physical and mental health
  (Allison, 1998).
• Victimization can result in the loss of
  individual self-esteem (Taylor et al., 1983).
• The experience of stigma is in essence a threat
  to the self (Crocker Garcia, 2006)

4
Is Body Modification an example of social stigma?

• Hindrance to employment (Mallory, 2001 Swanger,
  2006)
• Labeled as a risk status for having an infectious
  disease (Caliendo et al., 2004)
• Lack of proper knowledge by medical professionals
  (Caliendo et al., 2004 Meyer, 2000)
• Negative reactions from visible modifications
  (Sekelman, 2003 Armstrong, 1996 1998)
• Qualitative responses in this sample indicate
  many examples and types of discrimination

5
Dimensions of Social Stigma

• Typically compared between stigmas, but for this
  group within stigmas (if an individual is in a
  stigmatized group vs. how stigmatized an
  individual is)
• Responsibility preventable vs. active
• Commonness
• Threatening nature
• Visibility

6
Expected Effect on Self-Esteem

• It would appear from these relationships that
  being stigmatized should theoretically lead to
  internally stable, low individual self-esteem
  (Crocker, 1999)
• However, research on stigmatized groups
  (predominantly ethnic minorities) show small or
  nonsignificant differences from nonstigmatized
  members (Crocker et al., 1998 Crocker Major,
  1989 Diener Diener, 1995)

7
Group Membership as a Mediator

• Individuals that highly identify with their
  stigmatized group employ strategies that can help
  manage threats to individual self-esteem
  (Branscombe Ellemers, 1998 1999 Crocker et
  al., 1998)
• Collective self-esteem the value and individual
  places on their social groups (Luhtanen
  Crocker, 1992)
• Evaluates whether they feel positively or
  negatively about the social group which they
  belong

8
Research Hypothesis The same
relationship seen in other stigmatized groups
will be present in modified individuals.
Specifically
Collective Self-Esteem
Positive relationship
Degree of Stigma
Positive relationship
Individual Self-Esteem
Negative relationship
9
Method

• Procedure
• www.iam.bmezine.com
• Self-defined as a body modification community
  all members are part of a modified social group
• All members should be expected to have at least
  one type of body modification
• As of 8/2006 home to over 16,000 members
• Mass broadcast invited members to participate
  voluntarily which linked them directly to the
  survey hosted by www.surveymonkey.com

10
Method

• Questionnaire
• 162 questions (30-60 minutes to complete)
• Demographic information
• BME/IAM membership
• Questions addressing current and past
  modification practices

11
Measuring Degree of Stigma (1)

• Degree of stigma was assessed by asking the
  subject to rate where they fell on each of the
  following dimensions of stigma (higher scores
  higher stigmatization)
• Visibility (Please rate the visibility of your
  modifications 1-5)
• Commonness (Please rate the commonness of your
  modifications 1-5)
• Threatening Nature (Please rate how often you
  feel others are threatened by your modifications
  1-5)

12
Measuring Degree of Stigma (2)

• Degree of stigma was also assessed by measuring
  perceived discrimination in different
  circumstances Adapted Racism and Life Experience
  Scale (RALES) (Harrell et al., 1997)
• Example How often have you been treated rudely
  or disrespectfully because of your race? became
  How oftenbecause of your body modifications?
• 18 items rated 0-5 (never, once, a few times a
  month, once a week or more)
• Possible scores range from 0-90 (high scores
  indicating more perceived discrimination)
• Original scale Cronbachs a0.79 (Harrell et
  al., 1997)
• Adapted scale Cronbachs a0.93

13
Measuring Collective Self-Esteem (CSE) (1)

• CSE was assessed by adapting the Collective
  Self-Esteem Scale (Luhtanen Crocker, 1992) to
  reflect modified social groups in particular
• Example I feel good about the social groups I
  belong to was changed to I feel good about
  belonging to a group of modified individuals
• 16 items rated 0-7 (strongly disagree ? strongly
  agree)

• Four types of items that measure different
  aspects of CSE membership, public, private, and
  identity
• The average of each subscale was taken (each with
  a possible 1-7 score)

14
Measuring CSE (2)

• Original scale Cronbachs a estimates typically
  range from 0.45-0.66 for the subscales and
  0.37-0.59 for the total scale
• Adapted scale Item-total correlations range from
  0.24-0.70 with a total Cronbachs a0.83
• Exploratory Factor Analysis (SPSS v.13 MLE
  method with direct oblimin rotation) reproduced
  to four subscales with respective items loading
  correctly
• Only one item loaded incorrectly (slightly higher
  on another factor in addition to the correct one)

15
Measuring Individual Self-Esteem

• Individual self-esteem was assessed using the
  Rosenberg Self-Esteem Scale (Rosenberg, 1965)
• 10 items ranging 1-5 (strongly agree ? strongly
  disagree)
• Possible scores range from 10-40 (high scores
  indicate low self-esteem)
• Original scale Typical Cronbachs a range from
  0.77-0.88 (Blascovich Tomaka, 1993)
• Adapted scale Cronbachs a0.90

16
Sample

• 3,720 clicked the survey link (200 did not
  consent, 169 under the age of eighteen, 13
  indicated having no body modification)
• Of the remaining participants, only those with
  complete data on every question of interest were
  retained (comments indicated possible confusion
  about the adapted CSE measure)
• 1,966 respondents were used in the analysis,
  representing approximately 10-15 of IAMs total
  members

17
Sample Characteristics

• 55 female
• 88 Caucasian
• 58 from the U.S., 18 from Canada
• 94 with at least a high school diploma (11 in
  some form of graduate school)
• 83 were in some way employed
• 81 were between the ages of 18-30

18
Sample Characteristics Continued

• At the time of the survey
• 94.7 had at least one piercing
• (66.2 were between the ages 20-29)
• 85.8 had at least one tattoo
• (66.7 were between the ages 20-29)
• 33.3 had at least one scarification or branding
• (68.9 were between the ages 20-29)
• 16.7 had at least one type of surgical procedure
• (61.7 were between the ages 20-29)

19
Correlation Matrix of Included Variablesplt0.05,
plt0.01, plt0.001
20
LISREL v8.8 Standardized Estimates

• Significant minimum fit function chi-square
  (not
  unusual given the large sample size)
• Comparative Fit Index (CFI) 0.8590 and Normed
  Fit Index (NFI) 0.8536 (0.95 is considered a
  good fit)
• Standardized Root Mean Square Residual (SRMR)
  0.066 (typically lt0.08 is considered a good fit)

21
Were the expected relationships
found?(standardized estimates shown)

• Degree of stigma positively indirectly affects
  individual self-esteem through collective
  self-esteem
• Degree of stigma also does directly negatively
  affect individual self-esteem
• Comparing the strength of the direct and indirect
  effects suggests that CSE mediates the overall
  negative effects of stigma on individual SE

Stigma
Collective Self-Esteem
Individual Self-Esteem
0.2288
-0.3770
High scores indicate low self-esteem
Individual Self-Esteem
Stigma
0.1358
22
Conclusions and Comments

• Present results are encouraging to validate
  further research
• Behavior similar to other groups
• Voluntary nature of stigma
• Current literature does not focus on modified
  individuals as a stigmatized group, and there are
  no real measures assessing how stigmatized an
  individual is
• There may also be differences between individuals
  with different types of modifications
• Further research into measuring constructs more
  appropriately