A model suggesting that prejudice-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 (Experiment 1), and a slowing of responses (Experiment 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 (Experiment 2).Considerable empirical evidence indicates that despite societal trends toward liberalism and individual rejection of cultural stereotypes, prejudiced responses among Americans persist (e.g.

Ss reported their standards for how they should respond and how they would respond in contact situations with Black people (Study 1) and homosexual men (Study 2). Interest centered on the affective consequences associated with should-would discrepancies. Low and moderately prejudiced Ss with discrepancies reacted with feelings of global discomfort and with more specific feelings of compunction (guilt and self-criticism). High prejudiced Ss with discrepancies experienced only global discomfort. Study 3 data indicated that low prejudiced Ss internalized their nonprejudiced standards and felt obligated to respond consistently with them. High prejudiced Ss' personal standards were less well internalized and appeared to be derived from their perceptions of society's standards, which Ss indicated were mixed (i.e., contained both egalitarian and discriminatory components). Implications for prejudice reduction and contemporary models of prejudice are discussed.Many Southerners have confessed to me, for instance, that even though in their minds they no longer feel prejudice toward Blacks, they still feel squeamish when they shake hands with a Black. These feelings are left over from what they learned in their families as children. (Pettigrew, 1987, p. 20) Defeated intellectually, prejudice lingers emotionally. (Allport, 1954, p. 328) Pettigrew's and AUport's observations suggest that conscious decisions to renounce prejudice do not immediately eliminate prejudiced responses. Overcoming a lifetime of socialization experiences that, unfortunately, promote prejudice (Devine, 1989; Dovidio & Gaertner, in press;Ehrlich, 1973;P. A. Katz, 1976) is an arduous task. Thus, efforts to defeat prejudice are likely to involve a great deal of internal conflict between consciously endorsed nonprejudiced beliefs and lingering stereotypic thoughts and feelings.The coexistence of these contradictory reactions (i.e., nonprejudiced beliefs and negative responses) has often been regarded with suspicion in the prejudice literature. Of central concern is that many people who report nonprejudiced attitudes on surveys also manifest prejudice on nonconsciously monitored measures (Crosby, Bromley, & Saxe, 1980;Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). Several theorists have resolved the conflict by assuming that verbal reports are not trustworthy indicators of These studies were supported in part by a grant from the University of Wisconsin Graduate School. We gratefully acknowledge Valerie

Participants in two studies reported how they would feel, think, and behave after being confronted about either gender-biased or equivalent racial-biased responses. In Study 2, whether the confrontation was from a target group member (Black or female) or nontarget (White or male) group member was manipulated. Regardless of confronter status, allegations of racial bias elicited more guilt and apologetic-corrective responses and greater concern over having offended the confronter than similar confrontations of gender bias, which elicited more amusement. Target confrontations elicited less guilt but greater discomfort than nontarget confrontations and were associated with feelings of irritation and antagonism among more prejudiced participants. In addition, participants perceived a target's confrontation as more of an overreaction than the same confrontation from a nontarget. The implications of these findings for prejudice-reduction efforts are discussed.

Three experiments examined the effectiveness of interpersonal confrontations as a means for decreasing stereotypic responding. After making stereotypic inferences about Black individuals, participants were confronted and reactions were measured across various intrapersonal and interpersonal response domains. Confrontations varied in level of hostility (Experiment 1) and whether they were expressed by a Black or White person (Experiment 2). Results indicate that although confrontations (and particularly hostile ones) elicited negative emotions and evaluations toward the confronter, participants also experienced negative self-directed affect. Furthermore, regardless of who did the confronting or how much hostility was expressed, confronted participants subsequently were less likely to provide stereotypic responses (Experiments 1-2), and the effect of the confrontation generalized to reporting less prejudiced attitudes (Experiment 3).

A model concerning the establishment and operation of cues for control was developed and tested to understand how control can be exerted over (automatic) prejudiced responses. Cues for control are stimuli that are associated with prejudiced responses and the aversive consequences of those responses (e.g., guilt). In Experiments 1 and 2, 3 events critical to the establishment of cues occurred: behavioral inhibition, the experience of guilt, and retrospective reflection. In Experiment 3, the presentation of already-established cues for control did, as expected, produce behavioral inhibition. In Experiment 4, participants were provided with an experience in which cues could be established. Later presentation of those cues in a different task resulted in behavioral inhibition and less racially biased responses.