Enhancing the impact of counterstereotypic information: Dispositional attributions for deviance.

Wilder, David A.; Simon, Andrew F.; Faith, Myles S.

doi:10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.276

Cited by 56 publications

(49 citation statements)

References 37 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…HamburgerÕs (1994) prediction seems inconsistent with the work of many researchers who exposed participants to one disconfirming group member and found generalization using measures of group stereotypicality (see Garcia-Marques & Mackie, 1999, Experiment 2;Johnston, Bristow, & Love, 2000, Experiments 2 and 3; Kunda & Oleson, 1997;Nisbett, Kranz, Jepson, & Kunda, 1983, Experiment 2;Park & Hastie, 1987;Quattrone & Jones, 1980;Rothbart & Lewis, 1988, Experiment 3;Stapel & Koomen, 1998, Experiment 1;Wilder, Simon, & Faith, 1996;Yzerbyt, Coull, & Rocher, 1999, Experiments 1 and 3). We believe, however, that this inconsistency is more apparent than real.…”

Section: Previous One-member Generalization Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Increased group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member: Testing Hamburger’s model of member-to-group generalization

Паолини¹,

Hewstone²,

Rubin³

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Past research on member-to-group generalization has failed to distinguish the effect of member descriptive deviance from the effect of member evaluative deviance. In addition, researchers have used group judgments that confound stereotypicality with prejudice. Three experiments resolved these methodological problems and provided the first systematic test of HamburgerÕs (1994) model of stereotype change. In Experiment 1 (N ¼ 60), consistent with HamburgerÕs predictions, exposure to one deviant group member increased perceived group dispersion, but did not affect judgments of group stereotypicality and prejudice. Experiment 2 (N ¼ 120) replicated these results in an interpersonal setting, but not in an intergroup setting. Experiment 3 (N ¼ 125) replicated the results of Experiment 1 when a memberÕs profile conveyed information about eight stereotype-relevant dimensions, but not when it conveyed information about only four stereotype-relevant dimensions. We discuss the results in the light of past evidence and future strategies for stereotype change.

show abstract

Section: Previous One-member Generalization Experimentsmentioning

confidence: 91%

Increased group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member: Testing Hamburger’s model of member-to-group generalization

Паолини¹,

Hewstone²,

Rubin³

et al. 2004

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…When perceivers believe an individual possesses a certain trait, they engage in a one-sided search for confirmatory information, thereby bolstering their initial beliefs (Zuckerman, Knee, Hodgins, & Miyake, 1995). Even in the face of contradictory evidence, stereotype-driven attributions serve to maintain a social perceiver's initial beliefs about a group (Hastie, 1984;Hilton, Fein, & Miller, 1993;Wilder, Simon, & Myles, 1996). For example, people are less likely to use positive traits to explain the success of a member of a negatively stereotyped group (Karpinski & von Hippel, 1996;Maass, Zabbini, & Stahlberg, 1995;Schnake & Ruscher, 1998;Wigboldus, Semin, & Spears, 2000).…”

Section: Stereotypes and Ability Attributions For Test Performancementioning

confidence: 93%

Gender Differences in Persistence and Attributions in Stereotype Relevant Contexts

Kiefer

Shih

2006

Sex Roles

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The present research was designed to examine the effects of gender math stereotypes on performance attributions and persistence. Two experiments tested whether stereotypes guided men's and women's reactions to negative or positive feedback on an alleged test of verbal or math ability. In Study 1, attributions to ability were influenced by gender stereotypes: women were more sensitive to feedback on a test that was described as a test of their math ability than when the same test was described as a test of their verbal ability, whereas men showed the opposite pattern. Study 2 replicated these findings for negative feedback and further showed that gender differences in attributions to ability mediated the gender difference in persistence in the math domain following an alleged failure on a math test. The implications of stereotype-consistent attributions for women's persistence in quantitative fields are discussed.

show abstract

“…As with the case of EC, however, it is important to note that such changes in evaluative judgments do not reflect a direct influence of context stimuli on evaluative judgments. Rather, such influences should also be mediated by associative evaluations.Evidence for explicit attitude changes resulting from differences in pattern activation comes from studies showing that recently encountered members of a social group influence judgments about the group in general (e.g., Bless, Schwarz, Bodenhausen, & Thiel, 700 GAWRONSKI AND BODENHAUSEN 2001;Bodenhausen, Schwarz, Bless, & Wänke, 1995;Gawronski, Bodenhausen, & Banse, 2005;Henderson-King & Nisbett, 1996;Sia, Lord, Blessum, Thomas, & Lepper, 1999;Wilder, Simon, & Faith, 1996). From a general perspective, this research has demonstrated that participants evaluated a social group more negatively when they had recently encountered a negatively evaluated exemplar of the group.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change.

Gawronski

Bodenhausen²

2006

Psychological Bulletin

2,169

167

2,441

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A central theme in recent research on attitudes is the distinction between deliberate, "explicit" attitudes and automatic, "implicit" attitudes. The present article provides an integrative review of the available evidence on implicit and explicit attitude change that is guided by a distinction between associative and propositional processes. Whereas associative processes are characterized by mere activation independent of subjective truth or falsity, propositional reasoning is concerned with the validation of evaluations and beliefs. The proposed associative-propositional evaluation (APE) model makes specific assumptions about the mutual interplay of the 2 processes, implying several mechanisms that lead to symmetric or asymmetric changes in implicit and explicit attitudes. The model integrates a broad range of empirical evidence and implies several new predictions for implicit and explicit attitude change.Keywords: attitude change, cognitive consistency, dual-process models, evaluative conditioning, implicit measures If eras of psychological research can be characterized in terms of general ideas, a major theme of the current era is probably the notion of automaticity. Many aspects of human behavior that have previously been assumed to have their roots in higher order processes of deliberate reasoning are now viewed as resulting from automatic processes that may occur spontaneously and outside of people's awareness or control (Bargh, 1997;Moors & De Houwer, 2006). This perspective is also dominant in contemporary research on attitudes, in which deliberate, "explicit" attitudes are often contrasted with automatic, "implicit" attitudes (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Petty, Fazio, & Briñol, in press;Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000; Wittenbrink & Schwarz, in press). Whereas the former are usually equated with deliberative, self-reported evaluations, the latter are typically inferred from people's performance on response latency measures, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) or sequential priming tasks (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995;Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997).Even though previous models effectively account for the differential impact of implicit and explicit attitudes on spontaneous and deliberate behavior (e.g., Strack & Deutsch, 2004;Wilson et al., 2000), theories of attitude change still face a considerable asymmetry in integrating the available evidence. Contemporary models of persuasion have been very successful in explaining the influence of different kinds of message cues on self-reported explicit evaluations (Chen & Chaiken, 1999;Kruglanski & Thompson, 1999;Petty & Wegener, 1999; for a review, see Visser & Cooper, 2003). However, changes in implicit attitudes are still largely unexplained. This shortfall has its roots in at least two conceptual issues. First, several models of attitude change do not distinguish between implicit and explicit attitudes in the first place but treat attitudes as a unitary construct (e.g., Chaiken, Liberman, & Eagly, 1989...

show abstract

Enhancing the impact of counterstereotypic information: Dispositional attributions for deviance.

Cited by 56 publications

References 37 publications

Increased group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member: Testing Hamburger’s model of member-to-group generalization

Increased group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member: Testing Hamburger’s model of member-to-group generalization

Gender Differences in Persistence and Attributions in Stereotype Relevant Contexts

Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About