Stereotypes can influence social perception in undesirable ways. However, activated stereotypes are not always applied in judgments. The present research investigated how stereotype activation and application processes impact social judgments as a function of available resources for control over stereotypes. Specifically, we varied the time available to intervene in the stereotyping process and used multinomial modeling to independently estimate stereotype activation and application. As expected, social judgments were less stereotypic when participants had more time to intervene. In terms of mechanisms, stereotype application, and not stereotype activation, corresponded with reductions in stereotypic biases. With increasing time, stereotype application was reduced, reflecting the fact that controlling application is time-dependent. In contrast, stereotype activation increased with increasing time, apparently due to increased engagement with stereotypic material. Stereotype activation was highest when judgments were least stereotypical, and thus, reduced stereotyping may coincide with increased stereotype activation if stereotype application is simultaneously decreased.
BarghJ. A. (1999). The cognitive monster. In ChaikenS.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 361-382). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
2.
BowerG. H.KarlinM. B. (1974). Depth of processing pictures of faces and recognition memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 103, 751-757.
3.
CalanchiniJ.GonsalkoraleK.ShermanJ. W.KlauerK. C. (2013). Counter-prejudicial training reduces activation of biased associations and enhances response monitoring. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43, 321-325.
4.
CalanchiniJ.ShermanJ. W. (2013). Implicit attitudes reflect associative, non-associative, and non-attitudinal processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 654-667.
5.
CottrellC. A.NeubergS. L. (2005). Different emotional reactions to different groups: A sociofunctional threat-based approach to “prejudice.”Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 770-789.
6.
CressieN.PardoL.PardoM. C. (2003). Size and power considerations for testing loglinear models using φ-divergence test statistics. Statistica Sinica, 13, 555-570.
7.
CunninghamW. A.ZelazoP. D.PackerD. J.Van BavelJ. J. (2007). The iterative reprocessing model: A multilevel framework for attitudes and evaluation. Social Cognition, 25, 736-760.
8.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.
9.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. (2009). Statistical power analysis using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
10.
FazioR. H. (1990). Multiple processes by which attitudes guide behavior: The MODE model as an integrative framework. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 75-109.
11.
FazioR. H.JacksonJ. R.DuntonB. C.WilliamsC. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013-1027.
12.
GilbertD. T.HixonJ. G. (1991). The trouble of thinking: Activation and application of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 509-517.
13.
GlaserJ.KihlstromJ. F. (2006). Compensatory automaticity: Unconscious volition is not an oxymoron. In HassinR. R.UlemanJ. S.BarghJ. A. (Eds.), The new unconscious (pp. 171-195). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
14.
GlaserJ.KnowlesE. D. (2008). Implicit motivation to control prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 164-172.
15.
GoschkeT.KuhlJ. (1993). Representation of intentions: Persisting activation in memory. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 19, 1211-1226.
16.
HamiltonD. L.ShermanJ. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In WyerR. S.SrullT. K. (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
17.
HigginsJ. P. T.ThompsonS. G.DeeksJ. J.AltmanD. G. (2003). Measuring inconsistency in meta-analyses. British Medical Journal, 327, 557-560.
18.
HutchisonK. A. (2007). Attentional control and the relatedness proportion effect in semantic priming. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 33, 645-662.
19.
KawakamiK.DovidioJ. F.DijksterhuisA. (2003). Effect of social category priming on personal attitudes. Psychological Science, 14, 315-319.
20.
KawakamiK.DovidioJ. F.MollJ.HermsenS.RussinA. (2000). Just say no (to stereotyping): Effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 871-888.
21.
KrieglmeyerR.ShermanJ. W. (2012). Disentangling stereotype activation and stereotype application in the Stereotype Misperception Task. Journal Personality and Social Psychology, 103(2), 205-224.
22.
KundaZ.DavisP. G.AdamsB. D.SpencerS. J. (2002). The dynamic time course of stereotype activation: Activation, dissipation, and resurrection. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 283-299.
23.
KundaZ.SpencerS. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to mind and when to they color judgment?Psychological Bulletin, 129, 522-544.
24.
LakensD. (2013). Calculating and reporting effect sizes to facilitate cumulative science: A practical primer for t-tests and ANOVAs. Frontiers in Psychology, 4, Article 863.
25.
LeporeL.BrownR. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 275-287.
26.
MackieD. M.SmithE. R. (2002). Beyond prejudice: Moving from positive and negative evaluations to differentiated reactions to social groups. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
27.
MacraeC. N.MilneA. B.BodenhausenG. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37-47.
28.
MonteithM. J.Ashburn-NardoL.VoilsC. I.CzoppA. M. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 1029-1050.
29.
MonteithM. J.ShermanJ. W.DevineP. G. (1998). Suppression as a stereotype control strategy. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 2, 63-82.
30.
MoshagenM. (2010). multiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42-54.
31.
MoskowitzG. B.GollwitzerP. M.WaselW.SchallB. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167-184.
32.
MoskowitzG. B.LiP. (2011). Egalitarian goals trigger stereotype inhibition: A proactive form of stereotype control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 103-116.
33.
NeelyJ. (1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from lexical memory: Roles of inhibitionless spreading activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 106, 226-254.
34.
OosterhofN. N.TodorovA. (2008). The functional basis of face evaluation. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 105, 11087-11092.
35.
PayneB. K.ChengC. M.GovorunO.StewartB. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277-293.
36.
PayneB. K.HallD. L.CameronC. D.BisharaA. J. (2010). A process model of affect misattribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, 1397-1408.
37.
PhillsC. E.KawakamiK.TabiE.NadolnyD.InzlichtM. (2011). Mind the gap: Increasing associations between the self and Blacks with approach behaviors. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 197-210.
38.
R Development Core Team. (2010). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
39.
ShermanJ. W. (2006). On building a better process model: It’s not only how many, but which ones and by which means?Psychological Inquiry, 17, 173-184.
40.
ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.GonsalkoraleK.HugenbergK.AllenT. J.GroomC. J. (2008). The self-regulation of automatic associations and behavioral impulses. Psychological Review, 115, 314-335.
41.
ShermanJ. W.KrieglmeyerR.CalanchiniJ. (2014). Process models require process measures. In ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.TropeY. (Eds.), Dual-process theories of the social mind (pp. 121-138). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
42.
ShermanJ. W.MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG. V. (2000). Attention and stereotyping: Cognitive constraints on the construction of meaningful social impressions. European Review of Social Psychology, 11, 145-175.
43.
SperlingG. (1960). The information available in brief visual presentations. Psychological Monographs: General and Applied, 74(11), 1-29.
44.
Teige-MocigembaS.KlauerK. C. (2008). “Automatic” evaluation? Strategic effects on affective priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 1414-1417.
45.
Teige-MocigembaS.KlauerK. C. (2013). On the controllability of evaluative-priming effects: Some limits that are none. Cognition and Emotion, 27, 632-657.
46.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36(3), 1-48.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
