Suppression as a Stereotype Control Strategy

Monteith, Margo J.; Sherman, Jeffrey W.; Devine, Patricia G.

doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0201_4

Cited by 219 publications

(186 citation statements)

References 56 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

163

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Prior research has well documented that low-prejudice people are more willing and/or able to inhibit their stereotypes than are high-prejudice people (e.g., Devine, 1989;Monteith, 1993;Monteith et al, 1998). In the present studies, prejudice also has been shown to influence processes as diverse as attention, interpretation, and integration of behavioral information.…”

Section: Inhibition Encoding and Integration Processessupporting

confidence: 56%

Prejudice and Stereotype Maintenance Processes: Attention, Attribution, and Individuation.

Sherman

Stroessner

Conrey

et al. 2005

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Three experiments examined the relationship between prejudice and processing of stereotypic information. Higher levels of prejudice were associated with greater attention to and more thorough encoding of stereotype-inconsistent than stereotype-consistent behaviors but only when processing capacity was plentiful (Experiments 1 and 3). High-prejudice participants attributed consistent behaviors to internal factors and inconsistent behaviors to external forces (Experiment 2). Together, these results suggest that high-prejudice people attend carefully to inconsistent behaviors to explain them away but only if they have sufficient resources to do so. Results also showed that low-prejudice but not high-prejudice participants formed individuated impressions by integrating the implications of the target's behaviors (i.e., individuating). High levels of prejudice appear to be associated with biased encoding and judgment processes that may serve to maintain stereotypes.

show abstract

Section: Inhibition Encoding and Integration Processessupporting

confidence: 56%

Prejudice and Stereotype Maintenance Processes: Attention, Attribution, and Individuation.

Sherman

Stroessner

Conrey

et al. 2005

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

Self Cite

107

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Devine's studies of efforts to change stereotypes in the laboratory indicate that they are governed by automatic processing. Controlled processing can alter cognitive responses, but the process involves first an automatic stereotyped response, which is then suppressed and overridden by a nonstereotyped response (Monteith, Sherman, & Devine, 1998). Stereotypes thus have a strong and lasting imprint on the individual, one that can be suppressed and overridden but which seems more difficult to extinguish altogether.…”

Section: Basic Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems

Dodge

2006

Develop. Psychopathol.

591

493

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A model of the development of hostile attributional style and its role in children's aggressive behavior is proposed, based on the translation of basic science in ethology, neuroscience, social psychology, personality psychology, and developmental psychology. Theory and findings from these domains are reviewed and synthesized in the proposed model, which posits that (a) aggressive behavior and hostile attributions are universal human characteristics, (b) socialization leads to the development of benign attributions, (c) individual differences in attributional style account for differences in aggressive behavior, and (d) interventions to change attributions have the potential to alter antisocial development. Challenges for future research are described.The problem of antisocial crime has been estimated to cost American society over one trillion dollars per year (Anderson, 1999). Chronically antisocial individuals cost society between 1.6 and 2.2 million dollars each over the life span (Cohen, 1998). As youth, they are called seriously emotionally disturbed in the education system, juvenile delinquents in the justice system, and conduct disordered in the mental health system. About 7% of males qualify as conduct disordered in psychiatric nosology (Dodge, Coie, & Lynam, 2006). Their antisocial behavior is regarded as highly stable across long periods of life, and they are notoriously difficult to treat effectively. In the search for solutions regarding an understanding of etiology of chronic antisocial behavior and novel methods for intervention and prevention, the practice field has turned to the basic sciences, including ethology, neuroscience, social psychology, personality, and developmental psychology. The translation of these sciences to the treatment of these children is captured in the tenets of developmental psychopathology.This article concerns one concept that has grown out of translational science: hostile attributional bias. Consider the hypothetical 12-year-old boy walking down the middle-school hallway. A peer runs down the hallway, knocking him over and spilling his books on the floor. Peers laugh. How does the boy respond? Does he interpret the incident as disrespect and a threat to his reputation for strength and toughness and respond aggressively, or does he interpret the act benignly and walk away? Every child has this kind of experience, and the child's attribution and response are crucial to his or her well-being, self-respect, and reputation for strength. As Nisbett and Cohen (1996, p. xv) noted, "In many of the world's cultures, social status, economic well-being, and life itself are linked to such a reputation." A central thesis of this article is that individual differences in aggressive behavior occur as a function of characteristic styles of attributing hostile intent (or not) to others' provocative behavior.Over the past 25 years, over 100 studies have identified reliable correlations between the attribution that a peer provocateur has acted with hostile intent and a behavioral...

show abstract

“…For example, in the case of prejudice, a person may have an automatic tendency to judge an outgroup member in a negative manner or an ingroup member in a positive manner but control the expression of those automatic tendencies for a variety of reasons (Monteith et al, 1998;Sherman, in press). In other words, automatic associations may not be expressed because of controlled processing.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

The Quadruple Process model approach to examining the neural underpinnings of prejudice

et al. 2008

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Suppression as a Stereotype Control Strategy

Cited by 219 publications

References 56 publications

Prejudice and Stereotype Maintenance Processes: Attention, Attribution, and Individuation.

Prejudice and Stereotype Maintenance Processes: Attention, Attribution, and Individuation.

Translational science in action: Hostile attributional style and the development of aggressive behavior problems

The Quadruple Process model approach to examining the neural underpinnings of prejudice

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About