Research on automatic stereotyping is dominated by the idea that automatic stereotyping reflects the activation of (group–trait) associations. In two preregistered experiments (total N = 391), we tested predictions derived from an alternative perspective that suggests that automatic stereotyping is the result of the activation of propositional representations that, unlike associations, can encode relational information and have truth values. Experiment 1 found that automatic stereotyping is sensitive to the validity of information about pairs of traits and groups. Experiment 2 showed that automatic stereotyping is sensitive to the specific relations (e.g., whether a particular group is more or less friendly than a reference person) between pairs of traits and groups. Interestingly, both experiments found a weaker influence of validity/relational information on automatic stereotyping than on non-automatic stereotyping. We discuss the implications of these findings for research on automatic stereotyping.
AmodioD. M.DevineP. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652–661.
2.
AmodioD. M.RatnerK. G. (2011). A memory systems model of implicit social cognition. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 20(3), 143–148.
3.
AndreychikM. R.GillM. J. (2012). Do negative implicit associations indicate negative attitudes? Social explanations moderate whether ostensible “negative” associations are prejudice-based or empathy-based. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(5), 1082–1093.
4.
AshmoreR. D.Del BocaF. K. (1981). Conceptual approaches to stereotypes and stereotyping. In HamiltonD. L. (Ed.), Cognitive processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 1–35). Lawrence Erlbaum.
5.
BlairI. V.MaJ. E.LentonA. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 828–841.
6.
BurgessD.BorgidaE. (1999). Who women are, who women should be: Descriptive and prescriptive gender stereotyping in sex discrimination. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, 5(3), 665–692.
7.
CarlssonR.BjörklundF. (2010). Implicit stereotype content: Mixed stereotypes can be measured with the implicit association test. Social Psychology, 41(4), 213–222.
8.
ConeJ.FergusonM. J. (2015). He did what? The role of diagnosticity in revising implicit evaluations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 108(1), 37–57.
9.
ConeJ.FlahartyK.FergusonM. J. (2019). Believability of evidence matters for correcting social impressions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(20), 9802–9807.
10.
CrawfordM. T.ShermanS. J.HamiltonD. L. (2002). Perceived entitativity, stereotype formation, and the interchangeability of group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(5), 1076–1094.
11.
CumminsJ.De HouwerJ. (2019). An inkblot for beliefs: The truth misattribution procedure. PLOS ONE, 14(6), Article e0218661.
12.
CunninghamW. A.JohnsonM. K.RayeC. L.GatenbyJ. C.GoreJ. C.BanajiM. R. (2004). Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science, 15(12), 806–813.
13.
DasguptaN.AsgariS. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658.
14.
De HouwerJ. (2014). A propositional model of implicit evaluation. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 342–353.
15.
De HouwerJ. (2019). Implicit bias is behavior: A functional-cognitive perspective on implicit bias. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 14(5), 835–840.
16.
De HouwerJ.Barnes-HolmesD.MoorsA. (2013). What is learning? On the nature and merits of a functional definition of learning. Psychonomic Bulletin and Review, 20(4), 631–642.
17.
De HouwerJ.GawronskiB.Barnes-HolmesD. (2013). A functional-cognitive framework for attitude research. European Review of Social Psychology, 24(1), 252–287.
18.
De HouwerJ.Teige-MocigembaS.SpruytA.MoorsA. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135(3), 347–368.
19.
De HouwerJ.Van DesselP.MoranT. (2020). Attitudes beyond associations: On the role of propositional representations in stimulus evaluation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 127–183.
20.
DevineP. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18.
21.
DotschR. O. N.WigboldusD. H.Van KnippenbergA. D. (2013). Behavioral information biases the expected facial appearance of members of novel groups. European Journal of Social Psychology, 43(1), 116–125.
22.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP. (2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11(2), 77–83.
23.
FiskeS. T.CuddyA. J.GlickP.XuJ. (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(6), 878–902.
24.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692–731.
25.
GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R.RudmanL. A.FarnhamS. D.NosekB. A.MellottD. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109(1), 3–25.
26.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
27.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216.
28.
GreggA. P.SeibtB.BanajiM. R. (2006). Easier done than undone: Asymmetry in the malleability of implicit preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(1), 1–20.
JaboldP. (2020). Stereotype formation but no dissociation: Contradicting statistics reduce explicit and implicit stereotypes engendered by disproportional crime reporting. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 11(3), 364–373.
31.
JohnsonI. R.KoppB. M.PettyR. E. (2018). Just say no!(and mean it): Meaningful negation as a tool to modify automatic racial attitudes. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 88–110.
32.
KawakamiK.AmodioD. M.HugenbergK. (2017). Intergroup perception and cognition: An integrative framework for understanding the causes and consequences of social categorization. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 55, 1–80.
33.
KochA. J.D'MelloS. D.SackettP. R. (2015). A meta-analysis of gender stereotypes and bias in experimental simulations of employment decision making. Journal of Applied Psychology, 100(1), 128–161.
34.
KuhnT. S. (1970). The structure of scientific revolutions (2nd ed., enlarged). University of Chicago Press.
35.
KurdiB.BanajiM. R. (2017). Repeated evaluative pairings and evaluative statements: How effectively do they shift implicit attitudes?Journal of Experimental Psychology, 146(2), 194–213.
36.
KurdiB.MannT. C.CharlesworthT. E.BanajiM. R. (2019). The relationship between implicit intergroup attitudes and beliefs. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 116(13), 5862–5871.
37.
MartinD.HutchisonJ.SlessorG.UrquhartJ.CunninghamS. J.SmithK. (2014). The spontaneous formation of stereotypes via cumulative cultural evolution. Psychological Science, 25(9), 1777–1786.
38.
MoorsA. (2016). Automaticity: Componential, causal, and mechanistic explanations. Annual Review of Psychology, 67, 263–287.
39.
MoranT.Bar-AnanY. (2020). The effect of co-occurrence and relational information on speeded evaluation. Cognition and Emotion, 34(1), 144–155.
40.
MoranT.Bar-AnanY.NosekB. A. (2015). Processing goals moderate the effect of co-occurrence on automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 60, 157–162.
41.
MoranT.Bar-AnanY.NosekB. A. (2017). The effect of the validity of co-occurrence on automatic and deliberate evaluations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 47(6), 708–723.
42.
MoskowitzG. B.StoneJ.ChildsA. (2012). Implicit stereotyping and medical decisions: Unconscious stereotype activation in practitioners’ thoughts about African Americans. American Journal of Public Health, 102(5), 996–1001.
43.
NosekB. A.GreenwaldA. G.BanajiM. R. (2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 166–180.
44.
NosekB. A.SmythF. L.SriramN.LindnerN. M.DevosT.AyalaA.. . . KesebirS. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 106(26), 10593–10597.
45.
PetersK. R.GawronskiB. (2011). Are we puppets on a string? Comparing the impact of contingency and validity on implicit and explicit evaluations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 37(4), 557–569.
46.
PhillsC. E.HahnA.GawronskiB. (2020). The bidirectional causal relation between implicit stereotypes and implicit prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 46(9), 1318–1330.
47.
RubinsteinR. S.JussimL.StevensS. T. (2018). Reliance on individuating information and stereotypes in implicit and explicit person perception. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 75, 54–70.
48.
RudmanL. A.GoodwinS. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men?Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87(4), 494–509.
49.
SabinJ. A.RivaraF. P.GreenwaldA. G. (2008). Physician implicit attitudes and stereotypes about race and quality of medical care. Medical Care, 46, 678–685.
50.
ShermanJ. W. (1996). Development and mental representation of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 1126–1141.
51.
SimmonsJ. P.NelsonL. D.SimonsohnU. (2012). A 21 word solution. Dialogue. The Official Newsletter of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, 26(2), 4–7.
52.
SmithE. R.ZarateM. A. (1990). Exemplar and prototype use in social categorization. Social Cognition, 8(3), 243–262.
53.
SpencerK. B.CharbonneauA. K.GlaserJ. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), 50–63.
54.
StoutJ. G.DasguptaN.HunsingerM.McManusM. A. (2011). STEMing the tide: Using ingroup experts to inoculate women’s self-concept in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM). Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 255–270.
55.
WyerN. A. (2016). Easier done than undone. . . by some of the people, some of the time: The role of elaboration in explicit and implicit group preferences. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 63, 77–85.
56.
YeY.GawronskiB. (2018). Validating the semantic misattribution procedure as an implicit measure of gender stereotyping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3), 348–364.
57.
ZanonR.De HouwerJ.GastA. (2012). Context effects in evaluative conditioning of implicit evaluations. Learning and Motivation, 43(3), 155–165.
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.
