Trait Inferences as a Function of Automatically Activated Racial Attitudes and Motivation to Control Prejudiced Reactions

Abstract

This study investigated how automatically activated racial attitudes and motivation to control prejudiced reactions contribute to the impressions formed of targets whose photos varied by race, gender, and occupation. In earlier sessions, participants completed Dunton and Fazio's (1997) Motivation to Control Prejudiced Reactions scale, and underwent a priming procedure (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995) that provided an unobtrusive estimate of their automatically activated racial attitudes. In the final session, participants provided trait ratings of a number of target photos. Automatically activated racial attitudes were related to the trait inferences participants made of Blacks compared to matched Whites. However, this effect was moderated by motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Among the more motivated, both those with more negative and those with more positive attitudes displayed evidence of correction for their attitudes. This discussion focuses on the ways in which different kinds of motivation to control prejudiced reactions may manifest differently.First impressions are often formed as a function of the category of which the social target is a member. The general lesson from research in impression formation is that categorical-based impressions are relatively effortless and occur under conditions of low motivation or ability, and individuation is effortful and occurs under conditions of high motivation or ability (Brewer, 1988;Devine & Monteith;1999;Fazio, 1990;Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999;Fiske & Neuberg, 1990;Kunda & Thagard, 1996; but see Gilbert & Hixon, 1991;Spencer, Fein, Wolfe, Hodgson, & Dunn, 1998). Most models of impression formation assume that stereotypes and other group level information are activated from memory on perception of a group member (e.g., Banaji & Hardin, 1996;Banaji, Harden, & Rothman, 1993;Brewer, 1988;Devine, 1989;Fiske et al., 1999). 1 More deliberate and careful processing, on the other hand, can occur as the target's power over the perceiver increases (Fiske et al., 1999), under expectations of future interaction with the target (Johnston, Hewstone, Pendry, & Frankish, 1994), increased accountability for one's judgments (Tetlock, 1992), fear of invalidity (Kruglanski, 1989), and with the presence of unexpected, difficult, or surprising information that begs an explanation (Kintsch, 1988;Kunda, 1990).However, there are some notable qualifications to automatic stereotype activation. Gilbert and Hixon (1991) showed that under conditions of cognitive load, stereotypes may not be activated at all (see also Spencer et al., 1998). Stereotype activation also depends on the goals of the perceiver (e.g., Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, Thorn, & Castelli, 1997 In the realm of racial prejudice, other models of avoiding prejudiced responses suggest that motivated individuals might "replace," or "override" prejudiced responses with more positive ones, instead of attempting to correct for the bias associated with their automatically activated attitudes (e.g., Devine & Monteith,...

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

“…Even so, in the domain of prejudice, numerous investigations have found evidence for implicit -explicit consistency moderation using Dunton and Fazio's (1997) motivation to control prejudice scale as a domain-specific adjustment construct Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001;Dunton & Fazio, 1997;Fazio et al, 1995;Gawronski, Geschke, & Banse, 2003;Hofmann et al, 2005b;Olson & Fazio, 2004b;Payne et al, 2005; but see Fazio & Hilden, 2001).…”

“…The magnitude of this effect was surprisingly small. Together with the meta-analysis by Hofmann et al (2005a), this suggests that the field's emphasis on self-presentation as a (the) moderator of implicit -explicit consistency may be too strong.Even so, in the domain of prejudice, numerous investigations have found evidence for implicit -explicit consistency moderation using Dunton and Fazio's (1997) motivation to control prejudice scale as a domain-specific adjustment construct Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001;Dunton & Fazio, 1997;Fazio et al, 1995;Gawronski, Geschke, & Banse, 2003;Hofmann et al, 2005b;Olson & Fazio, 2004b;Payne et al, 2005; but see Fazio & Hilden, 2001).Plant and Devine (1998) further distinguish two types of stereotype control motivation: internal and external motivation to control prejudice. People high in internal motivation are assumed to control for prejudice due to strongly internalised personal standards while those high in external motivation are externally constrained to comply with society's egalitarian norms.…”

How subtyping shapes perception: Predictable exceptions to the rule reduce attention to stereotype-associated dimensions

“…In addition to social motives of this kind, other motives may also be regarded as causes of fencing off stereotype-disconfirming observations. Revising one's well established and simple stereotypes may collide with a need for simplicity and cognitive closure (Kruglanski & Freund, 1983), the need to think and behave consistently (Festinger, 1957), or the need to maintain positive self-views, such as being an unbiased person (Olson & Fazio, 2004).…”

Modeling stimulus variation in three common implicit attitude tasks

“…Measures of implicit attitudes are, perhaps, most prevalent in research on stereotyping and prejudice. Responses on the EPT, one common implicit attitude measure, have been shown to predict trait inferences for members of different racial groups (Olson & Fazio, 2004). Additionally, scores on implicit racial attitude measures are related to nonverbal behavior during interracial interactions (Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002).…”