Responding to the social world:



Responding to the social world:

Explicit and implicit processes in stereotype-based judgments

Lucy Johnston and Lynden Miles

University of Canterbury, New Zealand

The assumption of a strong association between negative stereotypes and discrimination (Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson & Gaertner, 1996) has led both researchers and social legislators to pursue attempts to change social stereotypes. An assumption frequently made is that providing perceivers with additional information, including stereotype-inconsistent information, about target groups will increase the accuracy of perceivers’ beliefs about these groups and hence reduce reliance on inaccurate group-based stereotypes. Accordingly early attempts to change social stereotypes involved presenting perceivers with stereotype-inconsistent information and then asking them to judge the group on stereotype-based dimensions. Although there was some support for this approach leading to stereotype moderation (see Hewstone, 1994 for a comprehensive review), there has been almost no consideration of the persistence of such moderation (Johnston, Hewstone, Pendry & Frankish, 1994). In addition, a number of processes by which perceivers could maintain their stereotypes, even in the face of inconsistent information were identified, for example information seeking (Johnston, 1996; Johnston & Macrae, 1994) and subtyping (Brewer, Dull & Lui, 1981; Johnston & Hewstone, 1992; Kunda & Oleson, 1995, 1997).

Information seeking research (Johnston, 1996; Johnston & Macrae, 1994) has demonstrated that when perceivers are able to control, to some extent, the nature and amount of information they receive about members of a target group, they show a bias toward stereotype-consistent information and avoid stereotype-inconsistent information. In addition they do not moderate their stereotype-based beliefs in response to stereotype-inconsistent information received in such situations, despite evidence that they do attend to that information (Johnston, 1996). Subtyping research (Brewer et al., 1981; Johnston & Hewstone, 1992; Kunda & Oleson, 1995, 1997) demonstrated that if the group exemplars displaying the stereotype-inconsistent behavior could be considered to be atypical of the target group then they were subtyped. The stereotype-inconsistent behavior performed by members of this subtype was acknowledged and these exemplars were judged in a non-stereotype based manner, but this was not generalized to the group as a whole and hence there was no moderation of group-based stereotypes. Subtyping can explain why extremely disconfirming exemplars (eg. Margaret Thatcher, Jesse Jackson) have little impact on group-based beliefs (of women and African-Americans respectively). However, there are many mildly disconfirming group exemplars encountered in everyday situations who cannot be readily subtyped and who cannot simply be avoided. How then do perceivers maintain their stereotype-based beliefs in the presence of such stereotype-inconsistent information?

The present paper describes recent research on stereotype moderation conducted in our laboratories. We first consider perceivers’ use of specific attributions for stereotype-relevant information in order to maintain stereotypic beliefs and minimize the impact of stereotype-inconsistent information. We then consider the impact of individual differences, specifically prejudice level and habitual stereotype use, on stereotype moderation effects.

One possible process by which perceivers can maintain their stereotype-based beliefs in the face of inconsistent information is through the attributions given to that information. Hewstone (1989) proposed an attributional model of stereotype change that predicted that stereotype-inconsistent information would only lead to moderation of group-based beliefs if that behavior was attributed to stable dispositional factors of a typical group exemplar. An internal stable attribution indicates that the stereotypically inconsistent act is representative of the actor’s usual behavior leading to the actor being perceived in a non-stereotypic manner (Krueger & Rothbart, 1988; Locksley, Borgida, Brekke & Hepburn, 1980). Since the actor is also perceived to be a typical group exemplar their behavior is considered to be representative of the target group. Hence, a non-stereotypic perception of the target individual should generalize to the group as a whole, resulting in stereotype moderation. In contrast if the target is considered to be an atypical group member, generalization would not occur (cf. subtyping) as their behavior is not considered to be representative of that of other group members. A situational attribution for inconsistent behavior also leads to the prediction of no generalization to group-based perceptions, as the behavior is not considered to be predictive of the target’s usual behavior (Jackson, Sullivan & Hodge, 1993). Wilder, Simon and Faith (1996) provided support for Hewstone’s model. Participants were provided with either a situational or a dispositional attribution for a stereotype-inconsistent behavior. Only when the exemplar was considered to be a typical group member and the behavior was given a dispositional attribution was there moderation of stereotype-based beliefs relative to control, no information, participants. Attributing stereotype-inconsistent behavior to dispositional causes may result in moderation of stereotype-based beliefs, but such attributions are rare. Stereotype-inconsistent behavior is usually attributed to situational factors (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985; Duncan, 1976; Evett et al., 1994; Macrae & Shepherd, 1989), attributions that do not lead to revision of stereotype-based judgments.

In two experiments we asked participants to rate the extent to which a stereotype-inconsistent behavior was caused both by situational and dispositional factors, prior to evaluating the target and group on stereotype-based dimensions (Johnston, Bristow & Love, 2000; Expt’s 2 and 3). Overall, the stereotype-inconsistent behavior was attributed more strongly to situational than to dispositional factors. The target individual was evaluated in less stereotype-based terms but there was no reduction in stereotype-based judgments of the target group relative to control, no information, participants. In order to further investigate the relationship between the attributions made for the target’s behavior and stereotype-based ratings an attribution index was calculated for each participant (ratings for dispositional causes were subtracted from those for situational ratings; a positive index indicates stronger situational than dispositional attributions and a negative index stronger dispositional than situational attributions). Correlations were computed between the attribution index and stereotype-based ratings of both the target individual and the group as a whole. Across the two experiments only one correlation was significant, between the index and ratings of the target. The higher the index (relatively stronger situational ratings) the more strongly the target was evaluated in stereotype-based terms. There was no correlation between the attribution index and judgments of the group, or between judgments of the target individual and the group however; less stereotype-based judgments of the target were not generalized to judgments of the group as a whole. Although attributing stereotype-inconsistent behavior to dispositional causes can lead to stereotype moderation (Wilder et al., 1996), such attributions, and hence stereotype moderation, perceivers may use situational attributions to reduce the impact of stereotype-inconsistent information on pre-existing group-based beliefs. It is noteworthy, however that some participants (29% and 33% in the two experiments) did show the opposite pattern of attributions, attributing the inconsistent behavior more strongly to dispositional than to situational factors. This finding is discussed in more detail later.

Attention in stereotype change research has, understandably, focused on the impact of stereotypic-inconsistent information. In doing so, however, we argue that an intriguing, counter-intuitive alternative route to stereotype moderation has been ignored. Stereotype-consistent information is preferred by information seekers (Johnston, 1996; Macrae & Johnston, 1994), and it is easy to process and to integrate into pre-existing beliefs. Such behavior is typically attributed to internal, stable factors (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985; Duncan, 1976; Evett et al., 1994; Macrae & Shepherd, 1989), which imply generalizability of the behavior across both time and target group member. Accordingly there is no cause for revision of stereotype-based beliefs in response to stereotype-consistent information. If consistent information were to be attributed to situational rather than to dispositional factors, however, moderation of group-based beliefs might result. If perceivers believed that individuals performed stereotype-consistent behaviors because of situational pressures rather than because of personal characteristics they may be less likely to endorse stereotypic beliefs about the target group to which those individuals belong. Consider, for example, sex-based stereotypic beliefs. Social role theory (Eagly, 1987; Eagly & Steffen, 1984) argues that sex-based stereotypes developed as a consequence of an unequal distribution of men and women in different social roles, not as a consequence of fundamental differences between men and women. That is, sex-based perceptions are argued to be the result of situational, or role, constraints rather than dispositional factors. Making perceivers aware of the situational causes of stereotypic behavior may reduce stereotype-based perceptions, just as the reversal of roles sees the disappearance of gender-based stereotypes (Eagly & Wood, 1982).

In three experiments we investigated the relationship between attributions made for stereotype-consistent information and stereotype-based judgments (Johnston et al., 2000). In the first experiment participants were provided with either a dispositional or a situational attribution for a target’s stereotype-consistent behavior and then asked to judge both the target and the group as a whole on stereotype-based dimensions. The target individual was judged in more stereotype-based terms by those participants who were given a dispositional attribution for the target behavior. These participants, however, did not differ from control, no information, participants in their judgments of the target group. When the stereotypic behavior was attributed to internal causes, there was no moderation of the group-based stereotype. Those participants given a situational attribution for the target behavior, however, rated the target group in less stereotype-based terms than did the baseline participants. Making participants aware of situational constraints on the stereotypic behavior reduced the strength of stereotype-based judgments of the target group, as predicted.

Although Experiment 1 demonstrated that situational attributions for stereotype-consistent information can lead to stereotype moderation, perceivers in that experiment were provided with an attribution for the target behavior. In 2 subsequent experiments, each using a different group and target behavior, participants were asked to provide attributions for a stereotype-consistent behavior prior to evaluating the target and group on stereotype-based dimensions. Note that Experiments 2 and 3 reported here are the same experiments as reported above. In each experiment half of the participants received a stereotype-consistent scenario and half a stereotype-inconsistent scenario. For clarity, the results for the stereotype-consistent and inconsistent behaviors are discussed separately. The stereotype-consistent behavior was, in both experiments, attributed more strongly to dispositional than to situational factors, a pattern of attributions consistent with stereotype maintenance. Indeed, in neither study was there moderation of the group-based stereotype relative to baseline participants. These results parallel those seen for the stereotype-inconsistent behavior. Although attributing stereotype-consistent behavior to situational causes may lead to stereotype moderation, such attributions, and consequently stereotype moderation, did not occur when participants provided the attributions for the target behavior. As with the inconsistent behavior a small number of participants (3% and 15%) showed the opposite pattern of attributions, attributing the stereotype-consistent behavior more strongly to situational than dispositional factors.

As for the inconsistent behavior, we calculated an attribution index and computed correlations between the attribution index and stereotype-based ratings of the target individual and group. In Experiment 2 there were correlations between the attribution index and ratings of both the target individual (r(33)=-.30, p ................
................

In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.

Google Online Preview   Download