In 4 studies the authors compared the effect of exemplars that deviate from the prototype in one or the other direction while controlling for the absolute amount of deviance. Incongruent exemplars typically do not change a stereotype. Yet, it is unclear whether this is also the case with exemplars that are more extreme than the stereotype, named supercongruent hereafter. Within Study 1 the authors showed that supercongruent exemplars can be differentiated from congruent exemplars and that they are perceived as more typical than incongruent exemplars. Study 2 demonstrated that supercongruent exemplars increase the perceived differences between groups, while incongruent exemplars do not lead to a decrease. In Study 3, a supercongruent exemplar was generalized to the stereotype, while an incongruent exemplar did not affect the stereotype. Study 4 replicated this finding and excluded the alternative hypothesis that this effect is due to the greater extremity and thus diagnosticity of supercongruent information.
Abrams, D., Marques, J.M., Bown, N., & Henson, M. ( 2000). Pro-norm and anti-norm deviance within and between groups . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 906-912.
2.
Brewer, M.B., Dull, V., & Lui, L. ( 1981). Perceptions of the elderly: Stereotypes as prototypes . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 41, 656-670.
3.
Cronbach, L.J. ( 1950). Further evidence on response sets and test design. Educational and Psychological Measurement, 10, 3-31.
4.
Doosje, B., Haslam, S.A., Spears, R., Oakes, P.J., & Koomen, W. ( 1998). The effect of comparative context on central tendency and variability judgments and the evaluation of group characteristics. European Journal of Social Psychology, 28, 173-184.
5.
Fiske, S.T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A.C., & Glick, P. ( 1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of Social Issues, 55, 473-489.
6.
Fiske, S.T., Cuddy, A.J.C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. ( 2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878-902.
7.
Garcia-Marques, L., & Mackie, D.M. ( 1999). The impact of stereotype-incongruent information on perceived group variability and stereotype change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 979-990.
8.
Hamburger, Y. ( 1994). The contact hypothesis reconsidered: Effects of the atypical outgroup member on the outgroup stereotype. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 15, 339-358.
9.
Hewstone, M., Hassebrauck, M., Wirth, A., & Waenke, M. ( 2000). Pattern of disconfirming information and processing instructions as determinants of stereotype change. British Journal of Social Psychology, 39, 399-411.
10.
Johnston, L., & Hewstone, M. ( 1992). Cognitive models of stereotype change: III. Subtyping and the perceived typicality of disconfirming group members. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 28, 360-386.
11.
Krueger, J., & Rothbart, M. ( 1990). Contrast and accentuation effects in category learning . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 651-663.
12.
Krueger, J., Rothbart, M., & Sriram, N. ( 1989). Category and change: Differences in sensitivity to information that enhances or reduces intercategory distinction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 866-875.
13.
Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K.C. ( 1995). Maintaining stereotypes in the face of disconfirmation: Constructing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565-579.
14.
Kunda, Z., & Oleson, K.C. ( 1997). When exceptions prove the rule: How extremity of deviance determines the impact of deviant examples on stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 965-979.
15.
Maurer, K.L., Park, B., & Rothbart, M. ( 1995). Subtyping versus subgrouping processes in stereotype representation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 69, 812-824.
16.
McCauley, C., & Stitt, C.L. ( 1978). Individual and quantitative measure of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 36, 929-940.
17.
Medin, D.L. ( 1989). Concepts and conceptual structure. American Psychologist, 44, 1469-1481.
18.
Mussweiler, T., & Strack, F. ( 1999). Hypothesis-consistent testing and semantic priming in the anchoring paradigm: A selective accessibility model. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 136-164.
19.
Oakes, P.J., Haslam, S.A., & Turner, J.C. ( 1998). The role of proto-typicality in group influence and cohesion: Contextual variation in the graded structure of social categories. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
20.
Paolini, S., Hewstone, M., Rubin, M., & Pay, H. ( 2004). Increased group dispersion after exposure to one deviant group member: Testing Hamburger’s model of member-to-group generalization . Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 325-332.
21.
Pettigrew, T.F., & Tropp, L. ( 2000). Does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Recent meta-analytic findings. In S. Oskamp (Ed.), Reducing prejudice and discrimination: Social psychological perspectives (pp. 93-114). Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
22.
Richards, Z., & Hewstone, M. ( 2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5, 52-73.
23.
Rosch, E., & Mervis, C.B. ( 1975). Family resemblances-Studies in internal structure of categories. Cognitive Psychology, 7, 573-605.
24.
Rothbart, M., & John, O.P. ( 1985). Social categorization and behavioral episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. In C. Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings (pp. 419-434). New York: Psychology Press.
25.
Rothbart, M., & Lewis, S. ( 1988). Inferring category attributes from exemplar attributes: Geometric shapes and social categories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 861-872.
26.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. ( 1992). Constructing reality and its alternatives: An inclusion/exclusion model of assimilation and contrast effects in social judgment. In L. L. Martin & A. Tesser (Eds.), The construction of social judgments (pp. 217-245). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
27.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. ( 2007). Mental construal processes: The inclusion/exclusion model . In D. A. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology (pp. 119-141). New York: Psychology Press.
28.
Skowronski, J.J., & Carlston, D.E. (1989). Negativity and extremity biases in impression formation: A review of explanations. Psychological Bulletin, 105, 131-142.
29.
Stapel, D.A. ( 2007). In the mind of the beholder: The interpretation comparison model of accessibility effects. In D. A. Stapel & J. Suls (Eds.), Assimilation and contrast in social psychology (pp. 143-164). New York: Psychology Press.
30.
Stapel, D.A., & Koomen, W. ( 2000). Distinctness of others, mutability of selves: Their impact on self-evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology , 79, 1068-1087.
31.
Tajfel, H., & Wilkes, A.L. ( 1963). Classification and quantitative judgement. British Journal of Psychology, 54, 101-114.
32.
Turner, J.C., & Oakes, P.J. ( 1989). Self-categorization theory and social influence. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
33.
Weber, R., & Crocker, J. ( 1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs . Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961-977.
34.
Wilder, D.A. ( 1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 177-194.
35.
Wolsko, C., Park, B., Judd, C.M., & Bachelor, J. ( 2003). Intergroup contact: Effects on group evaluations and perceived variability. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations , 6, 93-110.
36.
Wyer, N.A., Sadler, M.S., & Judd, C.M. ( 2002). Contrast effects in stereotype formation and change: The role of comparative context. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 443-458.
37.
Yzerbyt, V.Y., Coull, A., & Rocher, S.J. ( 1999). Fencing off the deviant: The role of cognitive resources in the maintenance of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 449-462.
