Spontaneous prejudice in context: variability in automatically activated attitudes

The goal of the research reported in this article was to examine whether automatic group attitudes and stereotypes, commonly thought to be fixed responses to a social category cue, are sensitive to changes in the situational context. Two experiments demonstrated such variability of automatic responses due to changes in the stimulus context. In Study 1 White participants' implicit attitudes toward Blacks varied as a result of exposure to either a positive (a family barbecue) or a negative (a gang incident) stereotypic situation. Study 2 demonstrated similar context effects under clearly automatic processing conditions. Here, the use of different background pictures (church interior vs. street corner) for Black and White face primes affected participants' racial attitudes as measured by a sequential priming task. Implications for the concept of automaticity in social cognition are discussed.

Spontaneous prejudice in context: variability in automatically activated attitudes

The goal of the research reported in this article was to examine whether automatic group attitudes and stereotypes, commonly thought to be fixed responses to a social category cue, are sensitive to changes in the situational context. Two experiments demonstrated such variability of automatic responses due to changes in the stimulus context. In Study 1 White participants' implicit attitudes toward Blacks varied as a result of exposure to either a positive (a family barbecue) or a negative (a gang incident) stereotypic situation. Study 2 demonstrated similar context effects under clearly automatic processing conditions. Here, the use of different background pictures (church interior vs. street corner) for Black and White face primes affected participants' racial attitudes as measured by a sequential priming task. Implications for the concept of automaticity in social cognition are discussed.

The communication of social stereotypes: the effects of group discussion and information distribution on stereotypic appraisals

Stereotypes are fundamentally social constructs, formulated and modified through discussion and interaction with others. The present studies examined the impact of group discussion on stereotypes. In both studies, groups of participants discussed their impressions about a hypothetical target group after having read behaviors performed by target group members. These behaviors included both stereotypic and counterstereotypic examples, and the distribution of these behaviors varied across discussion group members. In some groups only 1 member knew of the counterstereotypic behaviors; in other groups this information was distributed across all group members. In general, discussion led to a polarization of the target group stereotypes, but this effect was lessened when the counterstereotypic behaviors were concentrated in 1 group member. In this case, these counterstereotypic behaviors were discussed more and retained better.

Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs

Analyses designed to detect mediation and moderation of treatment effects are increasingly prevalent in research in psychology. The mediation question concerns the processes that produce a treatment effect. The moderation question concerns factors that affect the magnitude of that effect. Although analytic procedures have been reasonably well worked out in the case in which the treatment varies between participants, no systematic procedures for examining mediation and moderation have been developed in the case in which the treatment varies within participants. The authors present an analytic approach to these issues using ordinary least squares estimation.

Estimating and testing mediation and moderation in within-subject designs

Analyses designed to detect mediation and moderation of treatment effects are increasingly prevalent in research in psychology. The mediation question concerns the processes that produce a treatment effect. The moderation question concerns factors that affect the magnitude of that effect. Although analytic procedures have been reasonably well worked out in the case in which the treatment varies between participants, no systematic procedures for examining mediation and moderation have been developed in the case in which the treatment varies within participants. The authors present an analytic approach to these issues using ordinary least squares estimation.

Framing interethnic ideology: effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals

In 3 experiments, White American college students received a message advocating either a color-blind or a multicultural ideological approach to improving interethnic relations and then made judgments about various ethnic groups and individuals. Relative to a color-blind perspective, the multicultural perspective led to stronger stereotypes, greater accuracy in these stereotypes, and greater use of category information in judgments of individuals. This increase in between-category differentiation occurred both for attributes that favored the in-group and for attributes that favored the out-group and was also paired in some cases with greater overall positivity toward the out-group. The findings lead us to question the implicit assumption driving the majority of social psychological efforts at prejudice reduction: that the categorization process leads to prejudice, and that the relevance of social categories must therefore be de-emphasized.

Framing interethnic ideology: effects of multicultural and color-blind perspectives on judgments of groups and individuals

In 3 experiments, White American college students received a message advocating either a color-blind or a multicultural ideological approach to improving interethnic relations and then made judgments about various ethnic groups and individuals. Relative to a color-blind perspective, the multicultural perspective led to stronger stereotypes, greater accuracy in these stereotypes, and greater use of category information in judgments of individuals. This increase in between-category differentiation occurred both for attributes that favored the in-group and for attributes that favored the out-group and was also paired in some cases with greater overall positivity toward the out-group. The findings lead us to question the implicit assumption driving the majority of social psychological efforts at prejudice reduction: that the categorization process leads to prejudice, and that the relevance of social categories must therefore be de-emphasized.

Accentuation and sensitization effects in the categorization of multifaceted stimuli

Categorization affects perceptions in ways that are assumed to underlie social stereotypes. Research on categorization, however, has focused either on very simple stimuli or on judgmental tasks that focus attention only on single dimensions. To more fully understand the role of categorization in social perception, it is important to examine its effects in the case of multifaceted stimuli and holistic judgments. In 3 studies, participants formed an impression of a focal category of multifaceted stimuli either by itself or in the context of another category. They then judged the typicality of exemplars to the focal category. Results showed that categorization in the presence of a context produced both accentuation and sensitization effects: Participants accentuated between-category differences on relevant dimensions, and they were less sensitive to exemplar differences on irrelevant dimensions.

Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures

The content of spontaneously activated racial stereotypes among White Americans and the relation of this to more explicit measures of stereotyping and prejudice were investigated. Using a semantic priming paradigm, a prime was presented outside of conscious awareness (BLACK or WHITE), followed by a target stimulus requiring a word-nonword decision. The target stimuli included attributes that varied in valence and stereotypicality for Whites and African Americans. Results showed reliable stereotyping and prejudice effects: Black primes resulted in substantially stronger facilitation to negative than positive stereotypic attributes, whereas White primes facilitated positive more than negative stereotypic traits. The magnitude of this implicit prejudice effect correlated reliably with participants' scores on explicit racial attitude measures, indicating that people's spontaneous stereotypic associations are consistent with their more controlled responses.

Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures

The content of spontaneously activated racial stereotypes among White Americans and the relation of this to more explicit measures of stereotyping and prejudice were investigated. Using a semantic priming paradigm, a prime was presented outside of conscious awareness (BLACK or WHITE), followed by a target stimulus requiring a word-nonword decision. The target stimuli included attributes that varied in valence and stereotypicality for Whites and African Americans. Results showed reliable stereotyping and prejudice effects: Black primes resulted in substantially stronger facilitation to negative than positive stereotypic attributes, whereas White primes facilitated positive more than negative stereotypic traits. The magnitude of this implicit prejudice effect correlated reliably with participants' scores on explicit racial attitude measures, indicating that people's spontaneous stereotypic associations are consistent with their more controlled responses.

A general procedure for the estimation of interdependence

Dependencies among observations are of interest to psychologists for both methodological and substantive reasons. A general procedure is developed that can be used to estimated dependencies among observations, given a set of a priori expectations about the structure of those dependencies. The utility of this general procedure is illustrated for specific cases: the estimation of serial dependency in time-series data, of dyadic and group interdependence in social psychology, and of reliability. The utility of the approach derives from its generality and from its ability to handle randomly missing data.

Stereotypes and ethnocentrism: diverging interethnic perceptions of African American and white American youth

Much recent work on stereotyping has dealt with groups that are either artificially created or that do not have an extensive history of conflict. The authors attempted to overcome this limitation by examining issues of perceived variability and ethnocentrism among samples of White American and African American youth. The goals were both to examine theoretical issues in stereotyping and to describe the current state of ethnic interrelations among young people. Four studies are reported. Throughout, the samples of African Americans demonstrate interethnic judgments that are consistent with existing work on stereotyping and ethnocentrism. White American students, however, reported judgements that replicate neither the out-group homogeneity effect nor ethnocentrism. Alternative explanations for this difference are considered, and the discussion focuses on differing views concerning the role of ethnic identity and diversity in our society.

Stereotypes and ethnocentrism: diverging interethnic perceptions of African American and white American youth

Much recent work on stereotyping has dealt with groups that are either artificially created or that do not have an extensive history of conflict. The authors attempted to overcome this limitation by examining issues of perceived variability and ethnocentrism among samples of White American and African American youth. The goals were both to examine theoretical issues in stereotyping and to describe the current state of ethnic interrelations among young people. Four studies are reported. Throughout, the samples of African Americans demonstrate interethnic judgments that are consistent with existing work on stereotyping and ethnocentrism. White American students, however, reported judgements that replicate neither the out-group homogeneity effect nor ethnocentrism. Alternative explanations for this difference are considered, and the discussion focuses on differing views concerning the role of ethnic identity and diversity in our society.

The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions

Classic explanations of the "group polarization phenomenon" emphasize interpersonal processes such as informational influence and social comparison (Myers & Lamm, 1976). Based on earlier research, we hypothesized that at least part of the polarization observed during group discussion might be due to repeated attitude expression. Two studies provide support for this hypothesis. In Study 1, we manipulated how often each group member talked about an issue and how often he or she heard other group members talk about the issue. We found that repeated expression produced a reliable shift in extremity. A detailed coding of the groups' discussions showed that the effect of repeated expression on attitude polarization was enhanced in groups where the group members repeated each other's arguments and used them in their own line of reasoning. Study 2 tested for this effect experimentally. The results showed that the effect of repeated expression was augmented in groups where subjects were instructed to use each others' arguments compared to groups where instructions were given to avoid such repetitions. Taken together, these studies show that repeated expression accounts for at least part of the attitude polarization observed in the typical studies on group polarization and that this effect is augmented by social interaction, i.e., it occurs particularly in an environment where group members repeat and validate each other's ideas.

The effects of repeated expressions on attitude polarization during group discussions

Classic explanations of the "group polarization phenomenon" emphasize interpersonal processes such as informational influence and social comparison (Myers & Lamm, 1976). Based on earlier research, we hypothesized that at least part of the polarization observed during group discussion might be due to repeated attitude expression. Two studies provide support for this hypothesis. In Study 1, we manipulated how often each group member talked about an issue and how often he or she heard other group members talk about the issue. We found that repeated expression produced a reliable shift in extremity. A detailed coding of the groups' discussions showed that the effect of repeated expression on attitude polarization was enhanced in groups where the group members repeated each other's arguments and used them in their own line of reasoning. Study 2 tested for this effect experimentally. The results showed that the effect of repeated expression was augmented in groups where subjects were instructed to use each others' arguments compared to groups where instructions were given to avoid such repetitions. Taken together, these studies show that repeated expression accounts for at least part of the attitude polarization observed in the typical studies on group polarization and that this effect is augmented by social interaction, i.e., it occurs particularly in an environment where group members repeat and validate each other's ideas.

Accounting for case manager effects in the evaluation of mental health services

Three methods of accounting for case manager effects in tests of the efficacy of mental health services are explored. These methods include (a) treating the case manager as a fixed factor, (b) treating the case manager as a random factor, and (c) examining service effects within the case manager. They are demonstrated with data from a nationally known case management program serving individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. Specifically, 3 conceptually distinct types of services provided or brokered by case managers are identified: habilitation-rehabilitation, community support, and traditional psychiatric services. The effectiveness of each in improving clients' adjustment is then examined with multiple regression adjustment strategies and each of the 3 methods to account for case manager effects. The results provide strong support for effects attributable to case managers and some support for the efficacy of habilitation-rehabilitation and community support services beyond the effects of traditional psychiatric services.

Accounting for case manager effects in the evaluation of mental health services

Three methods of accounting for case manager effects in tests of the efficacy of mental health services are explored. These methods include (a) treating the case manager as a fixed factor, (b) treating the case manager as a random factor, and (c) examining service effects within the case manager. They are demonstrated with data from a nationally known case management program serving individuals with serious and persistent mental illness. Specifically, 3 conceptually distinct types of services provided or brokered by case managers are identified: habilitation-rehabilitation, community support, and traditional psychiatric services. The effectiveness of each in improving clients' adjustment is then examined with multiple regression adjustment strategies and each of the 3 methods to account for case manager effects. The results provide strong support for effects attributable to case managers and some support for the efficacy of habilitation-rehabilitation and community support services beyond the effects of traditional psychiatric services.

Statistical difficulties of detecting interactions and moderator effects

Although interaction effects are frequently found in experimental studies, field researchers report considerable difficulty in finding theorized moderator effects. Previous discussions of this discrepancy have considered responsible factors including differences in measurement error and use of nonlinear scales. In this article we demonstrate that the differential efficiency of experimental and field tests of interactions is also attributable to the differential residual variances of such interactions once the component main effects have been partialed out. We derive an expression for this residual variance in terms of the joint distribution of the component variables and explore how properties of the distribution affect the efficiency of tests of moderator effects. We show that tests of interactions in field studies will often have less than 20% of the efficiency of optimal experimental tests, and we discuss implications for the design of field studies.

Models of crossed categorization and intergroup relations

Two studies explored 6 models of crossed categorization. In Experiment 1, Muslims (majority) and Hindus (minority) in Bangladesh evaluated 1 of 4 target groups created by crossing religion (Hindu or Muslim) and nationality (Bangladeshi or Indian) and then rated the target group's perceived variability. Experiment 2 was an extension of the research, including new measures. Both studies showed additive effects of religion and nationality, as predicted by 3 models, a strong effect of category dominance for religion, and out-group homogeneity only when the religious in-group was the dominant and majority group in its country. Experiment 2 also showed a significant relationship between discrimination based on religion and self-esteem and marginal support for the hierarchical ordering model. When and how specific models of crossed categorization might operate in different intergroup contexts are discussed.

Models of crossed categorization and intergroup relations

Two studies explored 6 models of crossed categorization. In Experiment 1, Muslims (majority) and Hindus (minority) in Bangladesh evaluated 1 of 4 target groups created by crossing religion (Hindu or Muslim) and nationality (Bangladeshi or Indian) and then rated the target group's perceived variability. Experiment 2 was an extension of the research, including new measures. Both studies showed additive effects of religion and nationality, as predicted by 3 models, a strong effect of category dominance for religion, and out-group homogeneity only when the religious in-group was the dominant and majority group in its country. Experiment 2 also showed a significant relationship between discrimination based on religion and self-esteem and marginal support for the hierarchical ordering model. When and how specific models of crossed categorization might operate in different intergroup contexts are discussed.

Definition and assessment of accuracy in social stereotypes

A perennial issue in the study of social stereotypes concerns their accuracy. Yet, there is no clear concept of the various ways in which stereotypes may be accurate or inaccurate and how one would assess their accuracy. This article is designed to rectify this situation. Three forms of stereotype inaccuracy are identified: stereotypic inaccuracy, valence inaccuracy, and dispersion inaccuracy. The implications of each form are discussed, along with how each can be assessed using a full-accuracy design. Past research that has attempted to examine stereotype accuracy is reviewed, and new data on the issue are presented. Although of perennial interest, the theoretical and methodological difficulties of assessing stereotype accuracy are substantial. The goal in this article is to alert the researcher to these difficulties and point toward their solution.

False consensus and out-group homogeneity: a methodological note on their relationship

Two different lines of research in social psychology ask subjects to generate estimates of the percentage of group members who they think would espouse some position or make some behavioural choice. Research on the false consensus effect has shown that such estimates are influenced by the subject's own choice. Research on out-group homogeneity has shown that such estimates are higher for group stereotypic choices than counterstereotypic ones and that this difference in turn is more pronounced for out-groups than in-groups. In this article we explore the relationship between these two effects, both of which rely on the same dependent measure. We show that out-group homogeneity will be estimated with bias unless the subject's own choice is included as a factor in the analysis, whenever false consensus is present and whenever the two target groups differ in the prevalence of their actual choices. We demonstrate this confounding with both hypothetical and actual data.

Role of meaningful subgroups in explaining differences in perceived variability for in-groups and out-groups

Five aspects of the complexity of the knowledge representation of business and engineering majors were examined to see whether these differed by group membership and whether these differences were related to differences in perceived variability. Significantly more subgroups were generated when describing the in-group than the out-group; this difference predicted the relative tendency to see the in-group as more variable, and when controlled for statistically, out-group homogeneity effects were eliminated. Familiarity, redundancy, number of attributes used to describe the group, and the deviance of the subgroups from the larger group generally showed differences for in-group and out-group but did not show consistent evidence of mediation. In a 2nd study, Ss who were asked to sort group members into meaningful subgroups perceived greater variability relative to those who did not perform the sorting task.

Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability

The accuracy of in-group and out-group variability judgments was examined by comparing those judgments with the variability of self-ratings provided by random samples of group members. Following Park and Judd (1990), perceptions of both group dispersion and group stereotypicality were examined. Accuracy was examined both by within-subject sensitivity correlations and by simple discrepancies between perceived and actual variability estimates. In-group-out-group differences in sensitivity were shown, particularly for judgments of stereotypicality. These differences were related to differences in the degree to which out-group variability is underestimated relative to in-group variability (i.e., the out-group homogeneity effect). Out-group stereotypicality judgments were overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. Whether dispersion judgments were over- or underestimated depended on their measurement.

Accuracy in the judgment of in-group and out-group variability

The accuracy of in-group and out-group variability judgments was examined by comparing those judgments with the variability of self-ratings provided by random samples of group members. Following Park and Judd (1990), perceptions of both group dispersion and group stereotypicality were examined. Accuracy was examined both by within-subject sensitivity correlations and by simple discrepancies between perceived and actual variability estimates. In-group-out-group differences in sensitivity were shown, particularly for judgments of stereotypicality. These differences were related to differences in the degree to which out-group variability is underestimated relative to in-group variability (i.e., the out-group homogeneity effect). Out-group stereotypicality judgments were overestimated, supporting the view that out-group stereotypes are overgeneralizations. Whether dispersion judgments were over- or underestimated depended on their measurement.