Restricted accessResearch articleFirst published online 2019-12
Diversity may help the uninterested: Evidence that exposure to counter-stereotypes promotes cognitive reflection for people low (but not high) in need for cognition
Previous theorizing and research has linked exposure to counter-stereotypical diversity (e.g., an Oxford-educated bricklayer) to enhanced cognitive performance and creativity. However, it is unclear whether people’s motivation to cognitively engage with the counter-stereotypical information (i.e., need for cognition [NFC]) influences this effect. Across three experiments (N = 887) we found consistent support for the idea that exposure to counter-stereotypes (CSTs) promotes cognitive reflection for people low in NFC (d+ = .34). In contrast, people high in NFC showed decreased cognitive reflection after being exposed to CSTs (d+ = −.18), although the evidence for the latter effect was weak. These findings suggest that exposure to CSTs can promote cognitive reflection unless people have a strong desire to understand and predict outcomes and events, in which case exposure to CSTs may backfire. Taken together, we conclude that motivation to engage in cognitive activity may be an important consideration for research and interventions involving social and cultural diversity.
AikenL. S.WestS. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: SAGE.
2.
AllenT. J.ShermanJ. W.ConreyF. R.StroessnerS. J. (2009). Stereotype strength and attentional bias: Preference for confirming versus disconfirming information depends on processing capacity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1081–1087. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.06.002
3.
BaasM.De DreuC. K.NijstadB. A. (2008). A meta-analysis of 25 years of mood–creativity research: Hedonic tone, activation, or regulatory focus?Psychological Bulletin, 134, 779–806. doi:10.1037/a0012815
4.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.FeinsteinJ. A.JarvisB. W. G. (1996). Dispositional differences in cognitive motivation: The life and times of individuals varying in need for cognition. Psychological Bulletin, 119, 197–253. doi:10.1037/0033-2909.119.2.197
5.
CacioppoJ. T.PettyR. E.KaoC. F. (1984). The efficient assessment of need for cognition. Journal of Personality Assessment, 48, 306–307. doi:10.1207/s15327752jpa4803_13
6.
ChengC. Y.LeungA.WuT. Y. (2011). Going beyond the multicultural experience–creativity link: The mediating role of emotions. Journal of Social Issues, 67, 806–824. doi:10.1111/j.1540-4560.2011.01729.x
7.
CrispR. J.TurnerR. N. (2011). Cognitive adaptation to the experience of social and cultural diversity. Psychological Bulletin, 137, 242–266. doi:10.1037/a0021840
8.
EvansJ. B. T. (2008). Dual-processing accounts of reasoning, judgment, and social cognition. Annual Review of Psychology, 59, 255–278. doi:10.1146/annurev.psych.59.103006.093629
9.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.LangA.-G.BuchnerA. (2007). G*Power 3: A flexible statistical power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior Research Methods, 39, 175–191. doi:10.3758/bf03193146
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. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60318-4
11.
FiskeS. T.NeubergS. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74. doi:10.1016/S0065-2601(08)60317-2
12.
FrederickS. (2005). Cognitive reflection and decision making. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 19, 25–42. doi:10.2307/4134953
13.
GocłowskaM. A.BaasM.CrispR. J.De DreuC. K. W. (2014). Whether social schema violations help or hurt creativity depends on need for structure. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40, 1–13. doi:10.1177/0146167214533132
14.
GocłowskaM. A.CrispR. J. (2013). On counter-stereotypes and creative cognition: When interventions for reducing prejudice can boost divergent thinking. Thinking Skills and Creativity, 8, 72–79. doi:10.1016/j.tsc.2012.07.001
GocłowskaM. A.DamianR. I.MorS. (2018). The diversifying experience model: Taking a broader conceptual view of the multiculturalism–creativity link. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 49, 303–322. doi:10.1177/0022022116650258
17.
GoslingS. D.RentfrowP. J.SwannW. B. (2003). A very brief measure of the Big-Five personality domains. Journal of Research in Personality, 37, 504–528. doi:10.1016/S0092-6566(03)00046-1
18.
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, 3–25. doi:10.1037/0033-295X.109.1.3
19.
HutterR. R. C.CrispR. J. (2005). The composition of category conjunctions. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 647–657. doi:10.1177/0146167204271575
20.
HutterR. R. C.CrispR. J. (2006). Implications of cognitive busyness for the perception of category conjunctions. The Journal of Social Psychology, 146, 253–256. doi:10.3200/SOCP.146.2.253-256
21.
IsenA. M.DaubmanK. A.NowickiG. P. (1987). Positive affect facilitates creative problem solving. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 1122–1131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.52.6.1122
22.
KashdanT. B.GallagherM. W.SilviaP. J.WintersteinB. P.BreenW. E.TerharD.StegerM. F. (2009). The Curiosity and Exploration Inventory-II: Development, factor structure, and psychometrics. Journal of Research in Personality, 43, 987–998. doi:10.1016/j.jrp.2009.04.011
23.
LeungA.ChiuC.-Y. (2008). Interactive effects of multicultural experiences and openness to experience on creative potential. Creativity Research Journal, 20, 376–382. doi:10.1080/10400410802391371
24.
MacraeC. N.BodenhausenG. V.SchloerscheidtA. M.MilneA. B. (1999). Tales of the unexpected: Executive function and person perception. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 200–213. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.76.2.200
25.
MayerJ. D.GaschkeY. N. (1988). The experience and meta-experience of mood. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 102–111. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.55.1.102
26.
MirisolaA.SetaL. (2016). pequod: Moderated regression package. R package (Version 0.0–4) [Computer software]. Rerieved from http://CRAN.R-project.org/package=pequod
27.
MusselP. (2010). Epistemic curiosity and related constructs: Lacking evidence of discriminant validity. Personality and Individual Differences, 49, 506–510. doi:10.1016/j.paid.2010.05.014
28.
NeubergS. L.NewsomJ. T. (1993). Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for simpler structure. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 113–131. doi:10.1037/0022-3514.65.1.113
29.
New York Times. (2016, April21). Fans thank Prince for defying narrow stereotypes about race and gender, and opening the minds of others [Twitter feed]. Retrieved from https://twitter.com/nytimes/status/723233362228465664
30.
OppenheimerD. M.MeyvisT.DavidenkoN. (2009). Instructional manipulation checks: Detecting satisficing to increase statistical power. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 867–872. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.009
31.
PeerE.BrandimarteL.SamatS.AcquistiA. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–163. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006
32.
PratiF.CrispR. J.RubiniM. (2015). Counter-stereotypes reduce emotional intergroup bias by eliciting surprise in the face of unexpected category combinations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 31–43. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2015.06.004
33.
PratiF.VasiljevicM.CrispR. J.RubiniM. (2015). Some extended psychological benefits of challenging social stereotypes: Decreased dehumanization and a reduced reliance on heuristic thinking. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 801–816. doi:10.1177/1368430214567762
ShiotaM. N.KeltnerD.MossmanA. (2007). The nature of awe: Elicitors, appraisals, and effects on self-concept. Cognition and Emotion, 21, 944–963. doi:10.1080/02699930600923668
36.
SilviaP. J. (2008). Appraisal components and emotion traits: Examining the appraisal basis of trait curiosity. Cognition and Emotion, 22, 94–113. doi:10.1080/02699930701298481
37.
StrackF.DeutschR. (2004). Reflective and impulsive determinants of social behavior. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 8, 220–247. doi:10.1207/s15327957pspr0803_1
38.
ToplakM. E.WestR. F.StanovichK. E. (2013). Assessing miserly information processing: An expansion of the Cognitive Reflection Test. Thinking & Reasoning, 20, 147–168. doi:10.1080/13546783.2013.844729
39.
TverskyA.KahnemanD. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185, 1124–1131. doi:10.1126/science.185.4157.1124
40.
VasiljevicM.CrispR. J. (2013). Tolerance by surprise: Evidence for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism through novel category combination. PLoS ONE, 8, 1–9. doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0057106
41.
ViechtbauerW. (2010). Conducting meta-analyses in R with the metafor package. Journal of Statistical Software, 36, 1–48. doi:10.18637/jss.v036.i03
42.
Von StummS.HellB.Chamorro-PremuzicT. (2011). The hungry mind: Intellectual curiosity is the third pillar of academic performance. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6, 574–588. doi:10.1177/1745691611421204
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.
