In two experiments participants saw stereotype-incongruent information that was either high or low in variability. Following exposure participants generated distributions of group members from which central tendency and variability information was calculated. The comprehensive retrieval model (Garcia-Marques & Mackie, 1999) predicted greater change in perceived dispersion following high versus low variability incongruent information, but greater central tendency change following low versus high variability exposure. In Experiment 1 participants generated more variable distributions after exposure to high versus low variability inconsistent information and showed greater central tendency revision in the low compared to high variability condition, supporting predictions. These effects were replicated in Experiment 2, which demonstrated similar effects for congruent information.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2.
Brewer, M. B. , & Brown, R. J. (1998). Intergroup relations. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 2, pp. 554-584). New York: McGraw-Hill.
3.
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.
4.
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.
5.
Hamilton, D. L. , & Sherman, J. W. (1994). Stereotypes. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. & T. K Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., Vol. 2, pp. 1-68). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
6.
Hewstone, M. (1994). Revision and change of stereotypic belief: In search of the elusive subtyping model. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 5, pp. 69-109). Chichester, UKWiley.
7.
Hewstone, M. , & Hamberger, J. (2000). Perceived variability and stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 103-124.
8.
Kahneman, D. , & Miller, D. T. (1986). Norm theory: Comparing reality to its alternatives. Psychological Review, 93, 136-153.
9.
Kunda, Z. , & Oleson, K. C. (1995). Maintaining stereotypes in face of disconfirmation: Con-structing grounds for subtyping deviants. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68, 565-580.
10.
Kunda, Z. , & Oleson, K. C. (1997). When exceptions prove the rule: How extremity of deviance determines the impact of deviant exemplars on stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 965-979.
11.
Leyens, J.-P. , & Fiske, S. T. (1994). Impression formation: From recitals to symphonie fantastique. In P. G. Devine, D. L. Hamilton, & T. M. Ostrom (Eds.), Social cognition: Impact on social psychology (pp. 39-77). New York: Academic Press.
12.
Linville, P. W. (1998). The heterogeneity of homogeneity. In J. Cooper & J. Darley (Eds.), Attribution processes, person perception and social interaction: The legacy of Ned Jones (pp. 423-462). Washington, DC: American Psychological Association.
13.
Linville, P. W. , Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of characteristics of in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 165-188.
14.
Linville, P. W. , Salovey, P., & Fischer, G. W. (1986). Stereotyping and perceived distributions of social characteristics: An application to ingroup-outgroup perception. In J. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination and racism (pp. 165-208). New York: Academic Press.
15.
Mullen, B. , & Rosenthal, R. (1985). Basic meta-analysis: Procedures and programs. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
16.
Ostrom, T. M. & Sedikides, C. (1992) Outgroup homogenity effects in natural and minimal groups. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 536-552.
17.
Park, B. , & Hastie, R. (1987). Perception of variability in category development: Instance-versus abstraction-based stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 621-635.
18.
Park, B. , Judd, C. M., & Ryan, C. S. (1991). Social categorization and the representation of group variability. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology (Vol. 1, pp. 211-245). Chichester, UK: Wiley.
19.
Park, B. , & Rothbart, M. (1982). Perception of out-group homogeneity and levels of social categorization: Memory for the subordinate attributes of in-group and out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 1051-1068.
20.
Queller, S. (1997). Subtyping and subgrouping in social perception: A new technique for assessment. Unpublished doctoral dissertation, University of California. Santa Barbara.
21.
Rothbart, M. , & John, O. P. (1985). Social categorization and behavior episodes: A cognitive analysis of the effects of intergroup contact. Journal of Social Issues, 41, 81-104.
22.
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.
23.
Schmidt, F. L. (1996). Statistical significance testing and cumulative knowledge in psychology: Implication for training of researchers. Psychological Methods, 1, 115-129.
24.
Smith, E. R. (1998). Mental representation and memory. In D. T. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 391-445). New York: McGraw-Hill.
25.
Weber, R. , & Crocker, J. (1983). Cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 45, 961-977.
26.
Wolf, F. M. (1986). Meta-analysis: Quantitative methods for research synthesis. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
