Stereotypes III: Controlling stereotypes

Question 1

stereotyping is ubiquitous, but not inevitable

Answer 1

Stereotyping can be mindless (in terms of activation and application)

Lots of research argues that it is far from inevitable, and we will look at:

• Stopping stereotype activation
• Quashing the effects of stereotype activation once it has occurred

Question 2

preventing activation

Answer 2

Perceivers’ temporary processing goals (Macrae et al., 1997)

Their general attitudes (i.e. prejudice level) (Moskowitz et al., 1999)

Question 3

Macrae et al. (1997)

Answer 3

Relationship between activation and perceiver interest

Manipulated how motivated people are to pay attention

Sometimes don’t always activate stereotypes – low level of interest

A 3 (processing set: feature detection or semantic judgement or exposure) x 2 (trait type: stereotypic or counterstereotypic) mixed-design with repeated measures on the second factor.

Faces of female undergrads and household object

Feature detection (did white dot appear – yes/no), exposure (hit key when image appeared) or semantic (animate/inanimate object? – have to process info - what is object called?)

LDT (activation of woman construct)

Question 4

Macrae et al. (1997) results

Answer 4

RTs differed as function of processing goal

Lexical advantage of stereotypical words

Stereotype activation is not always a spontaneous by-product of a triggering stimulus – not inevitable

Activation only occurred when participants processed the target in a semantic manner.

Stereotype activation may be governed by pragmatic concerns (here, processing goals).

Question 5

Moskowitz et al. (1999)

Answer 5

Chronic vs non-chronic egalitarians – correlates with other scales – feel bad about something = chronic and vice versa – committed to being fair, tolerant and open-minded in all aspects of life

Photos of men/women plus attribute (consistent/inconsistent or irrelevant to stereotype of women), Pps to say word ASAP

Activation = faster responses to consistent primes (kind) following stereotype relevant primes (woman)

Only non-chronics showed activation – lexical advantage to stereotypical words after presented with image with woman

Being the kind of person who strives to be egalitarian may prevent activation

RT task so cannot be consciously controlled

Question 6

quashing the effects of activated stereotypes I: impression formation

Answer 6

Category membership and individuating attributes - which dominates?

Fiske & Neuberg’s (1990) Continuum Model…

Question 7

stages along the continuum

Answer 7

Initial categorization (speedy, effortless, impression can stop here – default option – have priority) – Hilda is an elderly female - consider in terms of personal goals

Confirmatory categorization (or here) – but she likes modern music, funky clothing and Strictly – hard to confirm as typical elderly female

More effort/interest required to continue…

• Recategorization (can stop here) – and she also services her own car, likes spicy food and flower arranging
• Piecemeal integration (the last step) - This family-loving, elderly woman called Hilda enjoys loud modern music, calmer creative activities, is mechanically minded and thrives on a diet of chicken vindaloo and Bombay potatoes – may need to move away from initial and recategorizations – go to other end of continuum – little reference to intial category

Question 8

what factors make us pay more attention?

Answer 8

Outcome dependency (Pendry & Macrae, 1994; ELE)

Perceiver accountability (Pendry,1998; ELE) – give account to someone else of impression formed initially

Accuracy-set instructions (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983) – pay more attention if instructed to be accurate

Question 9

Pendry and Macrae (1994; 1)

Answer 9

Recap…As we saw last time, individuated impressions likely when both motivated and non busy

Outcome dependent/not x cog busy/not

Least stereotypic impressions when outcome dependent and cog resources available

Could be motivated to be accurate but when cog busy not able to do so to the same extent

So, not enough to be motivated, need cognitive resources also

Question 10

Pendry and Macrae (1994; 2)

Answer 10

Looked more closely at role of attention

Probe Reaction Task (PRT) to measure residual attentional capacity

• Doesn’t take attentional capacity away
• How much attentional capacity left after primary task completed – e.g. forming impression
• Listen to Hilda talking about herself (headphones) and looking at screen – lightbulb in middle – glowed at random times and hit the spacebar to turn it off

Participants outcome dependent/independent/control – did task on own without impression formation task

Prediction: more involving goals will result in slower reaction to PRT…

Question 11

Pendry and Macrae 2 results

Answer 11

Most involving condition had slowest reactions – thought would be working with her – listened

More closely and less stereotypic

Pure measure of attention – evidence of model

Question 12

quashing the stereotype II: replacing stereotypic thoughts with egalitarian responses

Answer 12

Devine (1989) - Dissociation Model of Prejudice

Automatic activation does not inevitably lead to stereotypic responding - role of prejudice level

Monteith (1993) - self-regulation of prejudiced responding – sets in motion reg process to make sure we don’t do it again

We can regulate stereotyping if aware of the possibility of unconscious prejudice, motivated and have the time

Question 13

Devine (1989)

Answer 13

Study 1: all Pps, whether high or low in prejudice, know stereotype of Blacks – asked what the stereotype is

Study 2: when ability to consciously monitor activation was prevented, all Ps responded stereotypically (Lecture 3) – not aware

Study 3: Pps listed labels for blacks; thought-listing (write your honest thoughts about Blacks); MRS (modern racism scale)
- High prej. pps listed more negative thoughts; low-prej. people listed more positive thoughts

There are some methodological issues

Question 14

stereotype suppressionL pushing the unwanted thought out of mind

Answer 14

Wegner’s IMP (ironic monitoring processes) model

Don’t want to think about something – 2 processes – 1. intentional operating process – find thoughts that can distract you – 2. IMP – trying to find distractors is harder and IMP is easier – constantly able to find evidence that you’re failing to be distracted – priming yourself to think about thought even more – makes thought hyper-accessible - applies to lots of other domains as well

Suggests suppression can backfire…

Macrae et al. (1994) - the case of the skinhead

Question 15

Macrae et al. (1994; 1)

Answer 15

Study 1: A 2 (task instruction: stereotype suppression or control) x 2 (construction: Passage 1 or Passage 2) mixed design with repeated measures on the second factor

• Write day in life of skinhead
• Think about or suppress stereotype
• Another picture to write about and no instructions about stereotype

Prediction: participants instructed to suppress stereotypes in the first phase should show greater levels of stereotyping (i.e., rebound) in the second phase (in comparison to participants who did not suppress)
- Suppression condition able to suppress successfully

Third party ratings of passage stereotypicality showed that ‘suppress’ participants were more stereotypic in passage 2 than were controls (Ms: 7.83 vs 7.08)

But…demand characteristics? Real behavior? – artificial study

Question 16

study 2: does this impact on behaviour?

Answer 16

Similar design but instead of passage 2, looked at seating position of participant
- How far away they choose to sit

Predicted: Suppress participants would show evidence of rebound effects, by choosing a seat further away from the stereotyped target

Rationale - if still preoccupied with unwanted stereotypic thoughts, will strive to maintain greater social distance

Stereotype suppressors chose to occupy a seat further away from target than did control (respective Ms: 5.25 vs. 4.41, p < .04)

Question 17

but

Answer 17

Suppression task still prone to demand characteristics (TOLD to suppress)

The skinhead target vs. other groups (e.g., ones we might care more about)

Question 18

Macrae et al. (1998)

Answer 18

What sorts of factors make us suppress?

Self-focus and self-regulation

• Self-focus = more likely to act in line with internal norms and what you believe to be true
• Regulate behaviour

Mirror mirror on the wall (or yourself on video, or your own name vs. name of famous psychologist)

Question 19

Macrae et al. (1998) results

Answer 19

Presence of mirror, video, own name increased stereotype suppression – especially if anti-stereotyping

Such factors increase salience of belief that stereotype is undesirable

Can work in reverse direction - some Ps used that didn’t mind being stereotypical

Bottom line, self regulation can enhance the efficacy of regulatory procedures

Question 20

suppression debate

Answer 20

Not a clear-cut issue because of factors such as….

Level of prejudice towards stereotyped target: Monteith, Spicer & Tooman (1997)

Motivation and suppression: Plant & Devine (1997)

Practice and suppression: Kelly & Kahn (1994)

The role of replacement thoughts: Blair & Banaji (1996)

Stereotype suppression and activation: Moskowitz et al. (1996)

If interested read Monteith et al. (1998) on ELE and follow up