2013
DOI: 10.1037/a0029663
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

Brittle smiles: Positive biases toward stigmatized and outgroup targets.

Abstract: We examined individuals' tendencies to exaggerate their positive responses toward stigmatized others (i.e., overcorrect) and explored how overcorrection, because of its fragile nature, could be disrupted. The first 2 studies demonstrate overcorrection: White participants paired with Black partners (Experiment 1A) smiled, laughed, and showed more positive behavior than those paired with same-race partners. Experiment 1B replicated the general effect with a physically stigmatized sample (i.e., facial birthmarks)… Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

5
100
1

Year Published

2014
2014
2024
2024

Publication Types

Select...
8
2

Relationship

1
9

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 100 publications
(106 citation statements)
references
References 42 publications
5
100
1
Order By: Relevance
“…Consequently, requiring individuals to engage in extraneous cognitive activity at the time when they perform a choice task is likely to decrease the resources they can devote to coping with death anxiety and lead the effects of spontaneous cognitive processing to be more apparent. Evidence that putting individuals under cognitive load leads spontaneous processes to be more apparent has been demonstrated in numerous areas of research (e.g., Mendes & Koslov, 2013;Shen & Wyer, 2010;Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). In the present context, this suggests that putting participants under cognitive load at the time that they make their choices should interfere with the anxiety-coping processes activated by mortality salience and lead its effects on semantic concept activation, which are likely to occur automatically, to be more apparent.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…Consequently, requiring individuals to engage in extraneous cognitive activity at the time when they perform a choice task is likely to decrease the resources they can devote to coping with death anxiety and lead the effects of spontaneous cognitive processing to be more apparent. Evidence that putting individuals under cognitive load leads spontaneous processes to be more apparent has been demonstrated in numerous areas of research (e.g., Mendes & Koslov, 2013;Shen & Wyer, 2010;Shiv & Fedorikhin, 1999). In the present context, this suggests that putting participants under cognitive load at the time that they make their choices should interfere with the anxiety-coping processes activated by mortality salience and lead its effects on semantic concept activation, which are likely to occur automatically, to be more apparent.…”
Section: Methodsmentioning
confidence: 70%
“…On the other hand, it has often been shown that participants correct their explicit ratings in order to avoid stereotypical responses (e.g., Mendes & Koslov, 2013;Vanman, Paul, Ito, & Miller, 1997). It seems plausible that participants in our experiment were aware of the 'dominant man' stereotype and may have tried to correct their explicit responses accordingly.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 90%
“…In trying to act or appear nonprejudiced, Whites sometimes “over-correct” in their treatment of ethnic minorities (Vorauer & Turpie, 2004), acting overly friendly toward Blacks (Plant & Devine, 1998) and evaluating the same work more favorably when it is believed to be written by Blacks than Whites, especially when responses are public (Carver, Glass, & Katz, 1978; Harber, 1998, 2004). Furthermore, external concerns with avoiding the appearance of prejudice can lead Whites to amplify positive and conceal negative responses toward Blacks (Croft & Schmader, 2012; Mendes & Koslov, 2013). Thus, strong anti-prejudice norms may function as a double-edged sword, potentially leading Whites (at least those externally motivated to appear unprejudiced) to give minorities overly positive feedback and withhold useful negative feedback (Crosby & Monin, 2007).…”
Section: Attributional Ambiguity In Interethnic Interactionsmentioning
confidence: 99%