Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Register here to gain access to SAGE's 500+ Journals Online

Click here to sign up for SAGE Journal Email Alerts today!

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Citing Articles
Right arrow Citing Articles via HighWire
Right arrow Citing Articles via Google Scholar
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Frable, D. E. S.
Right arrow Search for Related Content
PubMed
Right arrow Articles by Frable, D. E. S.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 19, No. 4, 370-380 (1993)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167293194002

Dimensions of Marginality: Distinctions among those Who are Different

Deborrah E. S. Frable

Harvard University

Master status individuals are persons whose physical appearance, behavior, or life circumstance is statistically unusual and centrally defining. In three studies, undergraduates indicated the dissimilarity among various master status groups (e.g., amputees, musical prodigies, criminals, royalty) and then rated them on semantic differential scales (e.g., good-bad, safe-dangerous, alluring-repelling). Multidimensional scaling revealed that few dimensions are needed to distinguish among these marginal individuals. The most common distinctions are evaluative connotation and visibility of the master status characteristic. It was also found that, as a group, those who are culturally stigmatized are far more differentiated than those who are culturally valued.


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?


This article has been cited by other articles:


Home page
 Group Processes Intergroup RelationsHome page
M. Hewstone, R. J. Crisp, A. Contarello, A. Voci, L. Conway, G. Marletta, and H. Willis
Tokens in the Tower: Perceptual Processes and Interaction Dynamics in Academic Settings with 'Skewed', 'Tilted' and 'Balanced' Sex Ratios
Group Processes Intergroup Relations, October 1, 2006; 9(4): 509 - 532.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Cross-Cultural PsychologyHome page
V. Benet-Martinez, F. Lee, and J. Leu
Biculturalism and Cognitive Complexity: Expertise in Cultural Representations
Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, July 1, 2006; 37(4): 386 - 407.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Rehabil Couns BullHome page
H. Livneh and L. M. Wilson
Coping Strategies as Predictors and Mediators of Disability-Related Variables and Psychosocial Adaptation: An Exploratory Investigation
Rehabil Couns Bull, July 1, 2003; 46(4): 194 - 208.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Pers Soc Psychol BullHome page
P. M. Gonzales, H. Blanton, and K. J. Williams
The Effects of Stereotype Threat and Double-Minority Status on the Test Performance of Latino Women
Pers Soc Psychol Bull, May 1, 2002; 28(5): 659 - 670.
[Abstract] [PDF]

Home page
 Journal of Black StudiesHome page
A. Ben-David and A. T. Ben-Ari
The Experience of Being Different: Black Jews in Israel
Journal of Black Studies, March 1, 1997; 27(4): 510 - 527.
[PDF]