No full-text available
To read the full-text of this research,
you can request a copy directly from the authors.
Crossed-categorization and stereotypes: Class and ethnicity
Abstract
An experiment analyzing the influence of crossed-categorization on evaluative and cognitive responses is presented. The combined effects of class and ethnic information were enquired. Three models of cross-categorization were tested: Additive, Hierarchical, and Interactive. As for as the cognitive responses (traits' application) is concerned, the hierarchical model received support. Although both class and ethnic information had significant main effects, the impact of class information was stronger than the ethnic information. Anti-poor and antigypsies biases were found. The interactive model received marginal support, The anti-poor bias was restricted to gypsies. With regard to the evaluative responses, only ethnic information influenced evaluations of the targets. An anti-gypsy bias was found, The interactive model also received marginal support. The relative independent impact of crossed-categorization on evaluative and cognitive processes was confirmed.
... For this purpose, we presented a list of adjectives that mapped three trait domains: religiosity, sexism, and non-stereotypic traits. Studies of Arab stereotypes (Dambrun & Guimond, 2001;Echebarria Echabe & Fernández Guede, 2006a, 2006bGordijn, Koomen, & Stapel, 2001;Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991) reveal that sexism and religiosity are stereotypical dimensions attached to the image of Arabs. Participants were asked to express the extent to which they thought that the target was ), it could be argued that some of the traits included in the non- ...
... Having completed this measure, half of the participants were randomly assigned to the "cognitive-load and timepressure" condition. They answered McConahay's (1986) modern racism scale (α = 0.87), adapted to assess anti-Arab prejudice (Echebarria Echabe & Fernández Guede, 2006a, 2006b, under specific conditions: they were asked to retain in memory a cipher made up of numbers and letters (128XG756GHZ) while responding to the questionnaire. They were informed that a memory test would be presented during the session. ...
... For this purpose, we presented a list of adjectives that mapped three trait domains: religiosity, sexism, and non-stereotypic traits. Studies of Arab stereotypes (Dambrun & Guimond, 2001;Echebarria Echabe & Fernández Guede, 2006a, 2006bGordijn, Koomen, & Stapel, 2001;Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991) reveal that sexism and religiosity are stereotypical dimensions attached to the image of Arabs. Participants were asked to express the extent to which they thought that the target was ), it could be argued that some of the traits included in the nonstereotypic dimension are in reality part of one of the two dimensions (warmth and competence) which describe the stereotype of any group. ...
Three experimental studies analyzed the extent to which correlations between implicit and explicit measures of (anti-Arab) attitudes depend on the conditions in which these measures are applied. The first study revealed that the correlation increased when the explicit measure was applied in conditions of time-pressure and cognitive load. The second study showed that, under these conditions, both implicit and explicit measures predicted stereotypic attributions. The third study confirmed that the correlation between both measures increased when participants were previously familiarized with the logic that underlies the use of implicit measures. The theoretical and methodological implications of these results are discussed.
... Thus, as they could be contaminant, they should be perceived as posing a threat to physical health (Earnshaw, Smith, Chaudoir, Lee, & Copenhaver, 2012) and hence to physical safety. Gypsies are stereotypically perceived as thieves and beggars (Guimelli & Deschamps, 2000;Echebarria Echabe & Fernandez Guede, 2006). Thus, they should be perceived as posing a threat to ingroup property, physical safety, and ingroup values. ...
The sociofunctional model of prejudice (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) states that behaviors toward an outgroup are determined by emotions felt toward this outgroup, and that these emotions are determined by threats this group represents for one’s own group. Although widely cited in literature, this intuitively appealing model is not as supported as it is sometimes assumed. As a matter of fact, seminal data supporting the model have not been replicated, and the mediating role of emotions in the threat-behavior link remains in need of empirical evidence. Two studies were aimed at filling this gap by measuring specific threats, emotions and their associated behavioral intentions. Our results provide mixed support for the sociofunctional. We found evidence of the threat-emotion, the threat-behavior and the emotion-behavior links described in this model, but only partial support for the mediational role of emotion in the threat-behavior link.
... Pour la peur, nous avons sélectionné les Gitans et les schizophrènes. Les Gitans sont stéréotypés comme étant voleurs et criminels (Echebarria Echabe & Fernandez Guede, 2006 ;Goodman & Rowe, 2014 ;Guimelli & Deschamps, 2000). Parce que ces stéréotypes évoquent une menace pour la sécurité physique de l'endogroupe (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005) (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005). ...
Bien que la discrimination soit devenue illégale et immorale, les recherches ont montré que les comportements discriminatoires subsistent, parfois en se manifestant de manière subtile. Cependant, les processus impliqués dans ces effets sont encore mal connus. En s’appuyant sur une conception émotionnelle du préjugé (Cottrell & Neuberg, 2005), l’objectif général de ce travail de thèse était d’investiguer le rôle causal des émotions dans l’émission des comportements discriminatoires, que ce soit au niveau du ressenti émotionnel subjectif mais surtout, au niveau des réactions émotionnelles plus subtiles. La première étude a d’abord montré que les émotions déclarées de colère, de peur et de dégoût médiatisent le lien entre la menace représentée par l’exogroupe et le comportement déclaré envers celui-ci. Au-delà du ressenti émotionnel subjectif, nous émettions l’hypothèse que les premiers instants de la perception de l’exogroupe suffisent à déclencher des réactions émotionnelles (i.e., tendances comportementales), ces dernières entrainant la mise en place d’un comportement discriminatoire involontaire. En s’appuyant sur une organisation en chaine causale expérimentale, les études 3 à 6 ont tout d’abord montré que les tendances comportementales précoces sont déclenchées à partir de l’émotion majoritaire évoquée par l’exogroupe. Les études 7 et 8, en revanche, ne confirment pas le rôle causal des tendances comportementales dans la mise en place des comportements discriminatoires involontaires. Dans l’ensemble, ce travail de recherche apporte des éléments de preuve concernant l’implication précoce des émotions dans le processus de discrimination mais ne permet pas de valider leur rôle médiateur.
According to traditional theories, prejudice toward national, racial, and ethnic groups was considered to consist largely of a negative affective response toward the group or toward members of the group. More recently, however, the general approach to the study of prejudice within social psychology has been to emphasize its cognitive determinants, particularly in terms of the formation and maintenance of social stereotypes. The present research compared the importance of stereotypical beliefs about and affective responses to national, ethnic, and religious groups as predictors of favorability and preferred social distance toward the groups. In two studies, emotional responses to the target groups were found to be a more consistent and stronger predictor of attitudes and social distance than were social stereotypes. This was true whether stereotypes were assessed in terms of percentage assignment, as a likelihood ratio, or as personal beliefs about group characteristics. It is suggested that future researc...
This study investigates whether the greater in-group favoritism typically expressed by numerical minorities could be minimized by cross-cutting role assignment to the tasks in a cooperative setting. Study 1 manipulated the numerical representation of two groups and role assignment to a team task. The results showed that cross-cut role assignment decreased the in-group bias of both minority and majority groups, compared to convergent role assignment. Study 2 further examined the benefits of cross-cut assignment while controlling interaction among in-group and out-group members. The outcomes of Study 2 replicated those of Study 1 and showed that even without prior interaction during the cross-cut task, both minorities and majorities were less biased when role assignments cross-cut category membership. Moreover, the results showed that whereas both social category salience and identification were affected by role assignment, only identification mediated the effect of role assignment on in-group bias.
A model suggesting that prejudiced-related discrepancy experiences facilitate prejudice reduction efforts is proposed and tested. Prejudice-related discrepancies concerning gays were activated among low and high prejudiced Ss in 2 experiments. Results indicated that low-prejudiced (LP) Ss' violations of their LP and well-internalized attitudes produced compunction, self- and discrepancy-focused thoughts, attention to discrepancy-relevant information (Exp 1), and a slowing of responses (Exp 2). These findings indicated that LP Ss' discrepancies instigated a self-regulatory cycle that, theoretically, should help in achieving control over subsequent prejudiced responses. Evidence of effective self-regulation was found in a task following discrepancy activation. Specifically, LP Ss effectively inhibited prejudiced responses to jokes about gays as a consequence of discrepancy activation (Exp 2). (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Prior psychological research on attitudes toward the poor has focused almost exclusively on the attributions people make to explain why individuals are poor (e.g., Smith & Stone, 1989; Zucker & Weiner, 1993). The goal of the current study was to investigate the relationships among feelings about the poor and poverty, stereotypes of the poor, attributions for poverty, and sociopolitical ideologies (as assessed by the Protestant Ethic, Belief in a Just World, and Right Wing Authoritarianism Scales). In our Midwestern college sample (n = 209), attitudes toward the poor were found to be significantly more negative than attitudes toward the middle class. In addition, participants were most likely to blame poor people them-selves for their poverty. However, attitudes toward the poor and attributions for the causes of poverty were found to vary among individuals from different sociodemographic backgrounds and by degree of endorsement of Protestant ethic, just world, and authoritarianism beliefs. Few gender differences were obtained.
This research examined the accuracy and power of sex, social class, and ethnic stereotypes in person perception. Participants included 49 to 56 teachers and nearly 2,000 students in seventh-grade public school math classes. Results indicated that teacher perceptions regarding achievement and motivation differences between girls and boys, lower- and upper-class students, and African American and White students were mostly accurate. Results also showed that although teachers generally relied on students' personal characteristics to form their perceptions, they occasionally relied on stereotypes. We discuss these results in terms of the classic view that stereotypes are inaccurate, rigid, exaggerated, and exert powerful effects on person perception.
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.
Three studies investigated the authenticity of prejudice-related discrepancies. A comprehensive discrepancy questionnaire was developed (Study 1), which yielded small as well as large discrepancy scores. Study 2 indicated that discrepancy scores were stable, and personality could not account for the relation between discrepancies and their affective consequences. In Study 3, low-prejudice participants responded to jokes about Blacks under high or low distraction. Behavioral validation for self-reported discrepancies was found, such that participants with larger discrepancies evaluated the jokes more favorably under high than low distraction, but participants with smaller discrepancies provided equally unfavorable evaluations in both distraction conditions. Implications for understanding people's abilities to avoid potentially prejudiced responses and their self-insight into such abilities are discussed.
Two studies investigated the effects of the presentation of stereotype-inconsistent information on stereotype change. The implications of three cognitive models of schema change—the “bookkeeping,” “conversion,” and “subtyping” models (Weber & Crocker, 1983)—were considered. Experiment 1 varied the pattern of stereotype-inconsistent information (concentrated in a few group members, dispersed across many, or intermediate between the two) to compare versions of these models. Trait ratings showed the greatest stereotype change when the stereotype-inconsistent information was dispersed across group members. Typicality measures showed the slight disconfirmers of the dispersed condition to be considered more typical of the group than the strong disconfirmers of the concentrated condition. This was emphasised by a sorting task: in the concentrated condition, the stereotype-disconfirmers were more strongly isolated from the rest of the group than in the dispersed conditions. Multiple regression analyses revealed that only the perceived typicality of disconfirmers mediated stereotype change. Experiment 2 replicated the main findings using microcomputer presentation and also varied the order of stereotypic trait ratings and typicality judgments. Again trait ratings showed the greatest stereotype change in the dispersed condition and reading times were longer for disconfirmers than confirmers, but only in the dispersed condition. Overall, these studies give strong support to a prototype version of the subtyping model.
It is argued that members of low status groups are faced with a psychological conflict between group justification tendencies to evaluate members of one’s own group favorably and system justification tendencies to endorse the superiority of higher status out-groups. In Study 1, members of low status groups exhibited less ingroup favoritism and more ingroup ambivalence than did members of high status groups. Perceptions that the status differences were legitimate increased outgroup favoritism and ambivalence among low status groups, and they increased ingroup favoritism and decreased ambivalence among high status groups. In Study 2, the belief in a just world and social dominance orientation increased ambivalence on the part of women toward female victims of gender discrimination, but they decreased ambivalence on the part of men. Evidence here indicates that system-justifying variables increase ingroup ambivalence among low status group members and decrease ambivalence among high status group members.
In this article, the authors identify three methodological short-comings of the classic Princeton trilogy studies: (a) ambiguity of the instructions given to respondents, (b) no assessment of respondents' level of prejudice, and (c) use of an outdated list of adjectives. These shortcomings are addressed in the authors' assessment of the stereotype and personal beliefs of a sample of University of Wisconsin students. In contrast to the commonly espoused fading stereotype proposition, data suggest that there exists a consistent and negative contemporary stereotype of Blacks. Comparing the data from the Princeton trilogy studies with those of the present study, the authors conclude that the Princeton trilogy studies actually measured respondents' personal beliefs, not (as typically assumed) their knowledge of the Black stereotype. Consistent with Devine's model, high- and low-prejudiced individuals did not differ in their knowledge of the stereotype of Blacks but diverged sharply in their endorsement of the stereotype.
Two correlational studies attempt to determine the aetiology of Protestant Work Ethic (PWE) beliefs by looking at the relationship between it and various theoretically related variables. In the first study, three demographic and seven psychographic variables were regressed onto the PWE using step-wise multiple regression. Five of the ten predictors were significant indicating that people with high internal and powerful other locus of control beliefs, limited educaztion, conservativel free-enterprise economic beliefs, and strong postponement of gratification beliefs and practices were most likely to endorse the PWE. In the second study parents and college-age children completed the same questionnaire to indicate family resemblances in PWE beliefs. Using a within-family analysis it was found that there were family resemblances in PWE, economic and voting beliefs and that sons were less similar to their parents than were daughters. Results provide partial support for both McClelland's and Weber's theses, and underline other results suggesting the role of psychological conservatism in the development of PWE beliefs.
The reported study compared change in stereotypic perceptions of homogeneous and heterogeneous groups, when subjects were presented with a pattern of stereotype-inconsistent information that was either concentrated in two extreme group members or dispersed across six members. Results pro vided some support for the ‘conversion’ model (in which stereotypes change in response to salient instances) in the case of a homogeneous group, where stereotypical responding was lower in concentrated than dispersed conditions. In the heterogeneous-group conditions, there was no effect of pattern. In addition, subjects' estimates of stereotype-consistent information were higher, and of inconsistent information were lower, and they perceived more members as typical, and fewer as atypical, when the target group was heterogeneous versus homogeneous. There was also support for the ‘subtyping’ model (in which disconfirming individuals are isolated from other group members) in the concentrated conditions. A theoretical account of these findings is given in terms of stereotype change via salience for homogeneous groups, and the need to integrate research on cognitive models of stereotype change and perceived group variability.
Two processes of stereotyping, subtyping and subgrouping, are compared. Subtyping occurs when perceivers respond to members of a target group who disconfirm their stereotypes by seeing them as exceptions to the rule and placing them in a separate subcategory apart from members who confirm the stereotype. The more recently defined process of subgrouping refers to the perceiver's organization of information in terms of clusters of individuals based on their similarities and dif - ferences; subgroups can include confirmers and disconfirmers. We consider how subtypes and subgroups are defined, operationalized, and measured, their conse - quences for stereotype change, and the role of typicality. It is concluded that the clearest difference between subtyping and subgrouping is in terms of their conse - quences (subtyping leads to the preservation and subgrouping to differentiation of the stereotype). There are, however, some similarities between the processes, and at- tention is drawn to what future research is required, both to deepen our knowledge of each process and clarify their distinction.
Stereotype change is simulated in a distributed recurrent network. Although it operates using iterative application of simple learning rules as each new group member is presented, the network can nonetheless mimic both bookkeeping (Rothbart, 1981) and subtyping (Brewer, 1981; Taylor, 1981) patterns of results. It produces these effects through learning of reliable covariations between counterstereotypic units. Advantages and disadvantages of using a distributed recurrent network to model the representation of stereotypes are discussed. Key among the advantages are those relevant to the dynamic nature of these models.
Two studies investigated the pervasiveness of race as a social categorization and whether the organization of information around racial categories is sensitive to contextual factors. Both studies measured accentuation effects (more intra- than inter-race errors) and own-group bias (fewer confusions between own- than other-group members) in person memory, using the paradigm developed by Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff and Ruderman (1978). Experiment 1 studies the generalization of these effects across ethnic group membership (black/white) and topic (categorization-relevant/irrelevant) in a 2 × 2 [× 4] between-subject design, with type of error as a repeated measure. There was a highly significant accentuation effect, which was not affected by either topic or group membership. Experiment 2, using white subjects only, manipulated anticipated future interaction/no interaction, which affected overall accuracy/error rate, but not the strong accentuation effect. Neither study found any support for an own-group bias. Results are discussed in terms of the automaticity of race as a basis for social categorization.
The major aim of the present research was to examine if knowledge of cultural stereotypes about minority groups within society is virtually universal (3) or whether such knowledge is influenced by the perceiver's level of prejudice (cf. 9). In three studies, in which multiple measures of racial prejudice were used, it was shown that level of prejudice does relate to perception of cultural stereotypes. High-prejudiced people believed that the cultural stereotypes of Moroccan and Surinamese people in The Netherlands are more negative and less positive in content than low-prejudiced people did. It is argued that previous research may have failed, at least in part, to detect clear differences between low- and high-prejudiced people because it relied on the relatively insensitive Modern Racism questionnaire in order to measure prejudice.
Hypothesized that (a) people have a more complex cognitive representation of their own group than of other groups; (b) the less complex a person's representation of stimuli from a given domain, the more extreme will be the person's evaluations of stimuli from that domain; and (c) people will evaluate out-group members more extremely than in-group members. Using age as an in-group/out-group variable, Exp I supported the 1st hypothesis: Male undergraduates demonstrated greater complexity in their descriptions of their own age group than of an older age group. Results of Exps II and III support the 2nd hypothesis, with parallel findings for dispositional and manipulated complexity. Results from Exp II support the 3rd hypothesis in that younger males evaluated older male targets more extremely than they did younger ones. When the target was favorable, the older male was evaluated more positively than the younger one; when the target was unfavorable, the older male was evaluated more negatively. (52 ref) (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2012 APA, all rights reserved)
Based on the “Who said what?” paradigm, a new method is proposed for investigating social categorization and non-evaluative stereotype application in crossed categorization. The method is applied in 5 studies that manipulated relative context relevance of crossed age and gender categories. Social categorization is characterized by 2 indices: Relative subgroup memory assesses the amount of subgroup formation represented in memory, and relative category dominance the relative weight of each dimension of categorization. Both indices were affected by context relevance. There was strong evidence for social categorization at the subgroup level, whereas stereotype application followed a simple pattern of category dominance, in which only the context-relevant dimension exerted an effect. The results bear on current models of category-based impression formation and intergroup perception, and on category-activation cum stereotype-inhibition models.
A quasi-experiment was conducted to examine the effects of self-categorization in overlapping categories on intergroup differentiation. ‘Old aged women’ was used as the first, ‘sports’ as the additional category. It could be shown that intergroup differentiation was significantly reduced under crossed categorization conditions. Implications for social compensation strategies are discussed.
In two between-participants experiments (Ns = 216 and 260), Chinese in Singapore rated competence and attractiveness of strangers described (a) by cross-categorizations of race (Malay: out-group vs. Chinese: in-group) and nationality (Malaysian: out-group vs. Singaporean: in-group), (b) by simple categorization of either race or nationality, and (c) by no-group label. An additive effect of cross-categorizations was obtained: Both the race and nationality categorizations produced main effects but no interaction effect. Analyses of variance of the simple and cross-categorization data together also retained the additive effect as predicted by the adding rule. However, the higher ratings of the in-group than of the out-group in both the simple and cross-categorization conditions were based on an out-group derogation instead of an in-group bias. Explanations of the out-group derogation and suggestions for additional work on the cross-categorization effects are discussed.
Previous research has shown that stereotype-based judgements can be attenuated through the attribution of disconfirming information to individual group members. Typically in these studies, subjects are forced to process all the available in formation, including disconfirming information, before providing their impressions of the group. In the reported research, in contrast, we attempted to create a more naturalistic paradigm by allowing subjects to control the amount and nature of information they received about individual group members. Under these conditions, we expected subjects to instigate a biased information-seeking strategy and display a preference for stereotype-matching rather than stereotype-mismatching information. Our results supported this prediction. When subjects could control the nature and amount of information they received about a target group they showed: (i) a preference for stereotype-matching information and (ii) no change in their stereotypic impressions of the group. When, however, subjects were forced to process all the available information, their stereotypic evaluation of the group diminished. These findings demonstrate the general resistance of stereotypes to change in naturalistic, information-seeking settings.
The norm of internality is defined as a social valorization of explanations of behaviours (attribution) and outcomes (locus of control) which emphazise the causal ro̊le of the actor. It is shown in this paper: (1) that internal explanations are linked to self-presentation strategies; (2) that internal explanations are more often selected by middle-class subjects; (3) that these explanations are learned by children and by adults in psycho-socio-educational settings. Finally, the norm of internality is assumed to be linked to social practices (evaluation practices).
The present study explores the effect of crossing social categorizations upon subsequent intergroup discrimination. In the simple categorization conditions, subjects were divided into groups either on an explicitly random basis or on the basis of a very trivial similarity. In the crossed categorization condition, these two categorizations were criss-crossed. After performing a perceptual estimation task, subjects had to evaluate the performance of the different groups in this task. Subsequently they had to evaluate the groups on general characteristics less directly related to task performance. There was significant intergroup discrimination favouring the own group in the two simple categorization conditions, but this discrimination was strongly reduced in the crossed categorization condition. This was true for both kinds of evaluations. Subjects of a no categorization condition exhibited no self-favouritism. The theoretical implications of the data are discussed.
Researchers in the area of stereotype change have accumulated strong evidence for the subtyping phenomenon, whereby disconfirming members of a group are “fenced-off” or excluded from group perceptions. A variety of measures have been used in past work as indicators of subtyping with no consensus on what is the best measure. This study compared a large number of potential measures of subtyping by first manipulating through study instructions whether participants subtyped and then examining what measures covaried with the resulting group perceptions in the subtyping condition. Three measures showed statistically significant relationships with group perceptions. These included perceived typicality of disconfirming relative to confirming group members, memory confusions among confirming and disconfirming individuals, and rated similarity of confirming and disconfirming instances. Conceptually, the latter two measures are somewhat preferable to ratings of typicality because they are less invasive. Importantly atypicality did not appear to mediate stereotype change, only to covary with it.
This paper suggests that people can form impressions in a variety of ways that range from primarily category-based processes to primarily attribute-based processes, and that the process partially depends on the configuration of available information. Easily categorized configurations are hypothesized to elicit relatively category-based processes, while not easily categorized configurations are hypothesized to elicit relatively attribute-based processes. In Experiment 1, subjects first rated the likability of job-category labels and relevant trait attributes, in isolation from each other. At a later session, stimulus people were depicted by category labels (occupations) and relevant attributes (traits) in varying combinations. Typicality ratings confirmed the manipulated ease of categorizing the various information combinations. Correlations between subjects' evaluations of each stimulus person and their independent prior ratings of the components supported the idea of a continuum anchored respectively by relatively category-based and by relatively attribute-based impression formation processes. In the second study, think-aloud data further supported the current hypotheses: subjects spontaneously examined the fit between category and attributes, and they used the attributes more in the attribute-based conditions than in the category-based conditions. The protocol data also reveal some processes intermediate on the continuum between primarily category-based and primarily attribute-based processes; these include subcategorizing, generating new categories, and self-reference. Social perceivers apparently use flexible impression formation processes, depending on the configuration of available information.
The aim of this study was to investigate the relationship between various work beliefs (e.g. work and leisure ethic, Marxist beliefs, work involvement) and various general human (terminal and instrumental) values (Rokeach Value Survey). Over two-hundred and fifty adults completed six questionnaires measuring work and social beliefs as well as human values. Product-moment correlations showed that work ethic and organizational beliefs were most clearly linked to both terminal and instrumental values. Overall it seemed that work beliefs related most closely to the instrumental rather than the terminal values. A world at peace, equality and pleasure were the terminal values most closely related to the various work beliefs while clean, imaginative, obedient and polite were the instrumental values most closely related to the work beliefs. These results are closely related to those of Fether (1984) who used an Australian student sample. Speculations concerning the relationship between values, work beliefs and economic development are made.
A distributed connectionist network can account for both bookkeeping (M. Rothbart, 1981) and subtyping (M. B. Brewer, V. Dull, & L. Lui, 1981; S. E. Taylor, 1981) effects. The finding traditionally regarded as demonstrating subtyping is that exposure to moderate (compared with extreme) disconfirmers leads to subsequent ratings of the group that are less stereotypic. Despite learning that is incremental and analogous to bookkeeping, the simulations replicate this finding and suggest that the "subtyping" pattern of results will be drastically reduced if disconfirmers are encountered before the stereotype is well-established. This novel prediction holds with human participants and offers a tantalizing suggestion: Although moderate disconfirmers may produce more stereotype change. stereotype development might be discouraged by exposure to either extreme or moderate disconfirmers.
Recent research reveals that efforts to suppress stereotypic thoughts can backfire and produce a rebound effect, such that stereotypic thinking increases to a level that is even greater than if no attempt at stereotype control was initially exercised (e.g., Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). The primary goal of this article is to present an in-depth theoretical analysis of stereotype suppression that identifies numerous potential moderators of the effect of stereotype suppression on the likelihood of subsequent rebound. Our analysis of stereotype suppression focuses on two broad issues: the influence of level of prejudice and the influence of processing goals on the activation versus application of stereotypes. Although stereotype rebound occurs under some circumstances, we suggest that a complete understanding of this phenomenon requires consideration of the full array of possible moderating influences.
In this chapter, we trace the historical and intellectual origins of system justification theory, summarize the basic assumptions of the theory, and derive 18 specific hypotheses from a system justification perspective. We review and integrate empirical evidence addressing these hypotheses concerning the rationalization of the status quo, the internalization of inequality (outgroup favoritism and depressed entitlement), relations among ego, group, and system justification motives (including consequences for attitudinal ambivalence, self-esteem, and psychological well-being), and the reduction of ideological dissonance. Turning to the question of why people would engage in system justification—especially when it conflicts with other interests and motives— we propose that system justifying ideologies serve a palliative function in that they reduce anxiety, guilt, dissonance, discomfort, and uncertainty for those who are advantaged and disadvantaged.