Category and Stereotype Activation: Is prejudice inevitable?
Abstract
- 3 experiments tested hypothesis that those high and low in prejudice respond
similarly to direct stereotype activation, but differently to category activation
- Study 1:
- Showed that high and low prejudice people share the same knowledge of
stereotypes
- Study 2:
- Differential effects of category activation on high and low prejudice people
were tested
- High prejudice participants formed a more negative and less positive
impression of target after subliminal priming of the category ‘Blacks’
- Low prejudice people formed a more positive impression
- Study 3:
- Examined effects of stereotype activation in a conceptual replication of
Devines 1989 priming experiment
- Both high and low people increased negative ratings when valenced
stereotype content was primed
- Findings support a distinction between automatic stereotype activation resulting from
direct priming and on category activation
- Implies that the relations among categorization, stereotyping and prejudice are more
flexible (than is assumed)
Intro
- Paper investigates the automaticity of stereotype activation upon categorisation & the
role played by one’s level of prejudice in the occurrence & pattern of activation
The inevitability of prejudice argument
- Tradition has conceived stereotyping/prejudice as an automatic & inevitable
consequence of normal categorisation (adaptive & functional process)
- Upon subconscious categorisation, associated stereotypes become activated &
influence judgements/behaviour
- Negative group stereotypes can be thought of a cognitive component of prejudice
- Thus prejudice springs from normal cog processes & seems to be inevitable
Automatic stereotype activation
- Assumed that stereotypes are automatically activated upon perception of a category
member
- Stereotypes seen as networks of linked attributes (associations)
- What links may be more strongly activated might vary systematically with prejudice
level (person variable)
- To look at how stereotypes are elicited upon perception of a category member,
category and stereotype priming must be distinguished
- Both can also affect judgements differently
- Past research has also reported different effects for both priming types in impression
formation
, Stereotype Priming
- Automatic stereotype activation is not a consequence of categorization when
stereotypic characteristics are primed directly - rather it’s a cause of stereotypic
judgements
- Past research found that high and low prejudice people did not differ in their
impression of target person
- Paper explains this by suggesting that stereotypes are available in memory and can
be primed, thus becoming accessible temporarily
- The recent activation of available knowledge results in assimilation effects on
applicable constructs
- Cannot be inferred that high and low prejudice people would spontaneously activate
the cultural stereotype in this way as an automatic response to a group member
Category Priming
- Automatic stereotype activation is an effect of categorisation when only the category
is primed
- A model of automatic stereotype activation is still incomplete
- Devine’s 1989 study is the only one involving prejudice level directly related to
person perception (we need to know more)
- Different patterns of stereotype activation may be possible for high and low prejudice
people if category and stereotype priming are separated
Social Group Representations
- To challenge view of prejudice as inevitable, Devine distinguished between
stereotype knowledge & endorsement
- In her model, differential stereotype endorsement affects only controlled processes
- It is argued that even tho low prejudice people do not endorse the stereotype,
stereotype knowledge is thought to be activated automatically bc of its longer history
of activation than personal beliefs
- Thus low-prejudice people’s response to a stimulus evocative of a stereotyped group
is non-prejudiced only if the automatic prejudiced reaction can be inhibited
- This conclusion still implies that prejudice is inevitable, at least at an automatic level
- Devine’s theory presents a conceptual issue: in associational models of stereotypes,
the links between the group node and the associated characteristics usually
represents the perceiver’s beliefs that the group possesses those attributes
- If low and high prejudice people’s automatic responses are the same, the links (ie
beliefs & representations) do not differ
- Thus it’s not clear how low prejudice people’s rejection of the negative stereotype is
represented cognitively in associational models
- Research has found that high and low prejudice people have the full range of
stereotypic attributes associated with an outgroup available to them, but endorse
different beliefs about it
- Thus evaluations of the group differ
- But high and low prejudice people’s representations of the social group may not
necessarily differ in terms of content, but bc stronger links may have developed for
different characteristics
- Beliefs should be activated freq to process incoming info
Abstract
- 3 experiments tested hypothesis that those high and low in prejudice respond
similarly to direct stereotype activation, but differently to category activation
- Study 1:
- Showed that high and low prejudice people share the same knowledge of
stereotypes
- Study 2:
- Differential effects of category activation on high and low prejudice people
were tested
- High prejudice participants formed a more negative and less positive
impression of target after subliminal priming of the category ‘Blacks’
- Low prejudice people formed a more positive impression
- Study 3:
- Examined effects of stereotype activation in a conceptual replication of
Devines 1989 priming experiment
- Both high and low people increased negative ratings when valenced
stereotype content was primed
- Findings support a distinction between automatic stereotype activation resulting from
direct priming and on category activation
- Implies that the relations among categorization, stereotyping and prejudice are more
flexible (than is assumed)
Intro
- Paper investigates the automaticity of stereotype activation upon categorisation & the
role played by one’s level of prejudice in the occurrence & pattern of activation
The inevitability of prejudice argument
- Tradition has conceived stereotyping/prejudice as an automatic & inevitable
consequence of normal categorisation (adaptive & functional process)
- Upon subconscious categorisation, associated stereotypes become activated &
influence judgements/behaviour
- Negative group stereotypes can be thought of a cognitive component of prejudice
- Thus prejudice springs from normal cog processes & seems to be inevitable
Automatic stereotype activation
- Assumed that stereotypes are automatically activated upon perception of a category
member
- Stereotypes seen as networks of linked attributes (associations)
- What links may be more strongly activated might vary systematically with prejudice
level (person variable)
- To look at how stereotypes are elicited upon perception of a category member,
category and stereotype priming must be distinguished
- Both can also affect judgements differently
- Past research has also reported different effects for both priming types in impression
formation
, Stereotype Priming
- Automatic stereotype activation is not a consequence of categorization when
stereotypic characteristics are primed directly - rather it’s a cause of stereotypic
judgements
- Past research found that high and low prejudice people did not differ in their
impression of target person
- Paper explains this by suggesting that stereotypes are available in memory and can
be primed, thus becoming accessible temporarily
- The recent activation of available knowledge results in assimilation effects on
applicable constructs
- Cannot be inferred that high and low prejudice people would spontaneously activate
the cultural stereotype in this way as an automatic response to a group member
Category Priming
- Automatic stereotype activation is an effect of categorisation when only the category
is primed
- A model of automatic stereotype activation is still incomplete
- Devine’s 1989 study is the only one involving prejudice level directly related to
person perception (we need to know more)
- Different patterns of stereotype activation may be possible for high and low prejudice
people if category and stereotype priming are separated
Social Group Representations
- To challenge view of prejudice as inevitable, Devine distinguished between
stereotype knowledge & endorsement
- In her model, differential stereotype endorsement affects only controlled processes
- It is argued that even tho low prejudice people do not endorse the stereotype,
stereotype knowledge is thought to be activated automatically bc of its longer history
of activation than personal beliefs
- Thus low-prejudice people’s response to a stimulus evocative of a stereotyped group
is non-prejudiced only if the automatic prejudiced reaction can be inhibited
- This conclusion still implies that prejudice is inevitable, at least at an automatic level
- Devine’s theory presents a conceptual issue: in associational models of stereotypes,
the links between the group node and the associated characteristics usually
represents the perceiver’s beliefs that the group possesses those attributes
- If low and high prejudice people’s automatic responses are the same, the links (ie
beliefs & representations) do not differ
- Thus it’s not clear how low prejudice people’s rejection of the negative stereotype is
represented cognitively in associational models
- Research has found that high and low prejudice people have the full range of
stereotypic attributes associated with an outgroup available to them, but endorse
different beliefs about it
- Thus evaluations of the group differ
- But high and low prejudice people’s representations of the social group may not
necessarily differ in terms of content, but bc stronger links may have developed for
different characteristics
- Beliefs should be activated freq to process incoming info
