Disentangling stereotype activation and stereotype application in the stereotype misperception task.

Abstract

When forming impressions about other people, stereotypes about the individual's social group often influence the resulting impression. At least 2 distinguishable processes underlie stereotypic impression formation: stereotype activation and stereotype application. Most previous research has used implicit measures to assess stereotype activation and explicit measures to assess stereotype application, which has several disadvantages. The authors propose a measure of stereotypic impression formation, the stereotype misperception task (SMT), together with a multinomial model that quantitatively disentangles the contributions of stereotype activation and application to responses in the SMT. The validity of the SMT and of the multinomial model was confirmed in 5 studies. The authors hope to advance research on stereotyping by providing a measurement tool that separates multiple processes underlying impression formation.

Cardiac afferent activity modulates the expression of racial stereotypes

“…Depending on the context, different stereotypes may be activated. In Study 3, we investigated if the reported effects of cardiovascular interoceptive signals can be generalized to positive racial associations portraying Black individuals as athletic3536. The sport-fruits identification task35 is a modified version of the WIT in which participants were required to discriminate between pictures of fruits and sport-objects preceded by pictures of White or Black faces.…”

“…Here, participants had to discriminate between pictures of fruits (for example, apple, grapes, cherries) and sport-objects (for example, basketball ball, weights, skateboard)35. This task taps into the stereotype of Black individuals as athletic3536. Ten black and white pictures of each stimuli category were used.…”

The Weapons Identification Task: Recommendations for adequately powered research

“…To reduce the possibility that participants could identify targets based on repeated presentation, I rotated each image by 90 degrees to produce 4 orientations for a total set of 40 target stimuli. Finally, I implemented a third set of neutral control prime images that consisted of the outline of a face (see [52]).…”

Implicit Attitudes Reflect Associative, Non‐associative, and Non‐attitudinal Processes

“…For example, task switching ability (e.g., Mierke & Klauer, 2003), stimulus recoding into figure-ground discriminations (e.g., Rothermund, Wentura, & De Houwer, 2005), and response criterion setting processes (e.g., Klauer, Voss, Schmitz, & Teige-Mocigemba, 2007; for a review, see Teige-Mocigemba, have all been proposed to contribute to IAT performance. Several formal models incorporate non-associative processing components to explain performance on other implicit measures, including application of Jacoby's (1991) process dissociation procedure to a variety of measures (for a review, see Payne & Bishara, 2009), the ABC model (Stahl & Degner, 2007) of performance on the EAST (De Houwer, 2003), Nadarevic and Erdfelder's (2011) Trip model of performance on the GNAT (Nosek & Banaji, 2001), Payne and colleagues' (Payne, Hall, Cameron, & Bishara, 2010) account of performance on the AMP (Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), and Krieglmeyer and Sherman's (2012) multiprocess account of stereotype activation and application on the SMT. Each of these models provides evidence that both associations and non-associative processes contribute to responses on implicit attitude measures.…”