Egalitarian goals trigger stereotype inhibition: A proactive form of stereotype control

Moskowitz, Gordon B.; Li, Peizhong

doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.014

Cited by 120 publications

(107 citation statements)

References 79 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

100

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…kowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999;Moskowitz & Li, 2011;Sassenberg & Moskowitz, 2005). 3 The present research extends this previous work in significant ways.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 71%

When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust.

Posten

Mussweiler

2013

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trust and distrust are essential elements of human interaction, yet little is known about how trust and distrust shape how we perceive others. To close this gap, we examined how trust versus distrust influences stereotyping. Recent research has suggested that distrust fosters the use of cognitive nonroutine strategies. Building on these findings, we investigated the hypothesis that--contrary to intuition--it might be distrust rather than trust that reduces stereotyping. Supporting this hypothesis, engaging in an untrustworthy (vs. trustworthy vs. trust-unrelated) interaction resulted in less stereotypic evaluations in an unrelated person-judgment task (Experiment 1). Replicating the stereotype-reducing effect, 2 different distrust (vs. trust) priming manipulations led to less stereotypic person judgments in 2 different stereotyping paradigms (Experiments 2A and 2B). We hypothesized that a comparison focus on dissimilarities--a nonroutine mechanism that works against stereotyping--causes this stereotype-reducing effect. In line with this notion, distrust led to a more pronounced dissimilarity-focus (Experiment 3), and the stereotype-reducing effect of distrust diminished when this dissimilarity-focus was impaired (Experiment 4). Our findings suggest that distrust induces a dissimilarity-focus that in turn reduces stereotyping.

show abstract

“…kowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999;Moskowitz & Li, 2011;Sassenberg & Moskowitz, 2005). 3 The present research extends this previous work in significant ways.…”

Section: Theoretical Implicationssupporting

confidence: 71%

When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust.

Posten

Mussweiler

2013

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Previous accounts of bias correction focus on effortful, conscious processes (e.g., Wegner & Petty, 1995;Wegener & Petty, 1997), but more recent evidence has also suggested that bias correction can occur automatically. For instance, participants who wrote about a time where they failed to be egalitarian showed greater levels of stereotype inhibition on a reaction time measure than participants writing about a time where they were successfully egalitarian (Moskowitz & Li, 2011). Also, participants with a stronger implicit negative attitude towards prejudice, measured with an IAT pairing concepts of "prejudice" and "tolerant" with positive and negative words, were better able to inhibit stereotypes from influencing behavior (Glaser & Knowles, 2008).…”

Section: Relevance To Prominent Theoretical Accounts Of Racial Judgmentsmentioning

confidence: 96%

An Unintentional, Robust, and Replicable Pro-Black Bias in Social Judgment

Axt¹,

Ebersole²,

Nosek³

2016

Social Cognition

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

PRO-BLACK BIAS IN SOCIAL JUDGMENT 2 AbstractEmpirical evidence and social commentary demonstrate favoring of Whites over Blacks in attitudes, social judgment, and social behavior. In 6 studies (N > 4,000), we provide evidence for a pro-Black bias in academic decision-making. When making multiple admissions decisions for an academic honor society, participants from undergraduate and online samples had a more relaxed acceptance criterion for Black than White candidates, even though participants possessed implicit and explicit preferences for Whites over Blacks. This pro-Black criterion bias persisted among subsamples that wanted to be unbiased and believed they were unbiased. It also persisted even when participants were given warning of the bias or incentives to perform accurately.These results suggest opportunity for theoretical and empirical innovation on the conditions under which biases in social judgment favor and disfavor different social groups, and how those biases manifest outside of awareness or control. If there is one conclusion to draw from decades of research on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination in the United States, it is that Whites are treated more favorably than Blacks (Greenwald & Pettigrew, 2014;List, 2004;Pager & Shepherd, 2008). Historically, this is understood in the context of slavery, lynchings, segregation, and state-sponsored discrimination.But, evidence from late 20th and early 21st century research suggests that the effects persist, if in subtler, even unintentional forms (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Nosek, Smyth et al., 2007). Whites exhibited associations, attitudes, or behaviors that favored Whites over Blacks, and two papers in which Whites had attitudes, associations or behaviors that favored Blacks over Whites.In the first instance of pro-Black behavior (Unzueta, Everly & Gutierrez, 2014), White participants reported greater liking for a Black than White person after each complained about experiencing discrimination. In the other instance (Galinsky, Hall, & Cuddy, 2013), a majorityWhite sample was more likely to choose a Black female than White female candidate for a leadership position within a company, though White males were preferred over Black males.That such a majority of the research finds preferences for Whites over Blacks is perhaps not surprising given that, on average, Whites show explicit and implicit preferences for Whites PRO-BLACK BIAS IN SOCIAL JUDGMENT

show abstract

“…In an effort to prime egalitarian goals as opposed to values alone (Moskowitz & Li, 2011), participants were given a questionnaire that asked them how important it was to be egalitarian.…”

Section: [12] Priming An Egalitarian Mindset (Arnold Ho)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Lai¹,

Marini

Lehr

et al. 2014

Journal of Experimental Psychology: General

539

482

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted seventeen interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in four studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of seventeen interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared to Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other nine interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others' perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics. Abstract = 160 words Keywords = attitudes, racial prejudice, implicit social cognition, malleability, Implicit Association Test September 9, 2016 update: We updated this manuscript to fix several minor reporting errors that we have learned about since the publication of the manuscript in August 2014. For a summary of these updates, please see pages 67 and 68. Authors' note:This project was supported by a gift from Project Implicit. Lai and Hawkins are consultants and Nosek is an officer of Project Implicit, Inc., a non-profit organization that includes in its mission "To develop and deliver methods for investigating and applying phenomena of implicit social cognition, including especially phenomena of implicit bias based on age, race, gender or other factors. Thoughts and feelings outside of conscious awareness shape social perception, judgment and action (Bargh, 1999;Devine, 1989;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Nowhere has this idea been more explored than in studies of racial prejudice in which people report egalitarian racial attitudes, but also implicitly prefer Whites compared to Blacks (Devine, 1989;Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997;Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;. These studies have been influential because implicit racial preferences predict behaviors such as negative interracial contact (McConnell & Leibold, 2001), biases in medical decision-making (Green et al., 2007), and hiring discrimination (Rooth, 2010).From the hundreds of studies conducted, we can conclude that implicit preferences (1) are related to, but distinct from, explicit preferences (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;, (2) are constructed through different mechanisms than explicit preferences (De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009;Ranganath & Nosek, 2008;Ratliff & Nosek, 2011;Rydell & McConnell, 2006), ...

show abstract

Egalitarian goals trigger stereotype inhibition: A proactive form of stereotype control

Cited by 120 publications

References 79 publications

When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust.

When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust.

An Unintentional, Robust, and Replicable Pro-Black Bias in Social Judgment

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About