Margo J. Monteith

Prejudice with and without compunction.

Ss reported their standards for how they should respond and how they would respond in contact situations with Black people (Study 1) and homosexual men (Study 2). Interest centered on the affective consequences associated with should-would discrepancies

Putting the brakes on prejudice: on the development and operation of cues for control.

A model concerning the establishment and operation of cues for control was developed and tested to understand how control can be exerted over (automatic) prejudiced responses. Cues for control are stimuli that are associated with prejudiced responses and the aversive consequences of those responses (e.g., guilt). In Experiments 1 and 2, 3 events critical to the establishment of cues occurred: behavioral inhibition, the experience of guilt, and retrospective reflection. In Experiment 3, the presentation of already-established cues for control did, as expected, produce behavioral inhibition. In Experiment 4, participants were provided with an experience in which cues could be established. Later presentation of those cues in a different task resulted in behavioral inhibition and less racially biased responses.

Suppression as a Stereotype Control Strategy

Recent research reveals that efforts to suppress stereotypic thoughts can backfire and produce a rebound effect, such that stereotypic thinking increases to a level that is even greater than if no attempt at stereotype control was initially exercised (e.g., Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). The primary goal of this article is to present an in-depth theoretical analysis of stereotype suppression that identifies numerous potential moderators of the effect of stereotype suppression on the likelihood of subsequent rebound. Our analysis of stereotype suppression focuses on two broad issues: the influence of level of prejudice and the influence of processing goals on the activation versus application of stereotypes. Although stereotype rebound occurs under some circumstances, we suggest that a complete understanding of this phenomenon requires consideration of the full array of possible moderating influences.

Confronting Prejudice (Literally): Reactions to Confrontations of Racial and Gender Bias

Participants in two studies reported how they would feel, think, and behave after being confronted about either gender-biased or equivalent racial-biased responses. In Study 2, whether the confrontation was from a target group member (Black or female) or nontarget (White or male) group member was manipulated. Regardless of confronter status, allegations of racial bias elicited more guilt and apologetic-corrective responses and greater concern over having offended the confronter than similar confrontations of gender bias, which elicited more amusement. Target confrontations elicited less guilt but greater discomfort than nontarget confrontations and were associated with feelings of irritation and antagonism among more prejudiced participants. In addition, participants perceived a target’s confrontation as more of an overreaction than the same confrontation from a nontarget. The implications of these findings for prejudice-reduction efforts are discussed.

Standing up for a change : Reducing bias through interpersonal confrontation

Three experiments examined the effectiveness of interpersonal confrontations as a means for decreasing stereotypic responding. After making stereotypic inferences about Black individuals, participants were confronted and reactions were measured across various intrapersonal and interpersonal response domains. Confrontations varied in level of hostility (Experiment 1) and whether they were expressed by a Black or White person (Experiment 2). Results indicate that although confrontations (and particularly hostile ones) elicited negative emotions and evaluations toward the confronter, participants also experienced negative self-directed affect. Furthermore, regardless of who did the confronting or how much hostility was expressed, confronted participants subsequently were less likely to provide stereotypic responses (Experiments 1-2), and the effect of the confrontation generalized to reporting less prejudiced attitudes (Experiment 3).

Chapter 14 – The Role of Discrepancy-Associated Affect in Prejudice Reduction

Publisher Summary This chapter presents evidence to support the argument that the self-generated affect that follows from violations of nonprejudiced values plays an important role in the future control and regulation of stereotype-based responses The first step in the prejudice reduction process involves establishing and internalizing nonprejudiced standards and values. However, adopting nonprejudiced standards is not equivalent to overcoming prejudice. Despite the fact that stereotype-based responses are viewed as inappropriate once nonprejudiced values are established, such responses are extremely difficult to avoid. The chapter reviews research relevant to peoples experienced difficulties in trying to avoid stereotypical responses and their affective reactions to their failures to avoid such responses. It presents the theoretical rationale for understanding why and how affect plays a role in the prejudice reduction process.

Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: how easily do they take root?

Three experiments provided evidence that intergroup bias occurs automatically under minimal conditions, using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). In Experiment 1, participants more readily paired in-group names with pleasant words and out-group names with unpleasant words, even when they were experienced only with the in-group and had no preconceptions about the out-group. Participants in Experiment 2 likewise showed an automatic bias favoring the in-group, even when in-group/out-group exemplars were completely unfamiliar and identifiable only with the use of a heuristic. In Experiment 3, participants displayed a pro-in-group IAT bias following a minimal group manipulation. Taken together, the results demonstrate the ease with which intergroup bias emerges even in unlikely conditions.

Proneness to Prejudiced Responses: Toward Understanding the Authenticity of Self-Reported Discrepancies

Three studies investigated the authenticity of prejudice-related discrepancies. A comprehensive discrepancy questionnaire was developed (Study 1), which yielded small as well as large discrepancy scores. Study 2 indicated that discrepancy scores were stable, and personality could not account for the relation between discrepancies and their affective consequences. In Study 3, low-prejudice participants responded to jokes about Blacks under high or low distraction. Behavioral validation for self-reported discrepancies was found, such that participants with larger discrepancies evaluated the jokes more favorably under high than low distraction, but participants with smaller discrepancies provided equally unfavorable evaluations in both distraction conditions. Implications for understanding peoples abilities to avoid potentially prejudiced responses and their self-insight into such abilities are discussed.

Contemporary Forms of Prejudice-Related Conflict: In Search of a Nutshell

Racial ambivalence theory, modern racism theory, and research on prejudice-related discrepancies all suggest that many Whites have conflicting reactions to Blacks. The present research investigated whether these forms of prejudice-related conflict are distinct by determining (a) the extent of association among measures of each form of conflict and (b) the affective reactions associated with each form of conflict. Results revealed virtually no evidence of overlap among the measures of conflict, and scores on measures of each form of conflict were associated with unique patterns of affective reactions. Racial ambivalence was uniquely associated with heightened guilt and discomfort, prejudice-related discrepancies were uniquely associated with heightened guilt and reduced positive affect, and modern racism had no unique affective consequences. Theoretical and applied implications of the existence of numerous contemporary forms of prejudice-related conflict are discussed.

Thinking Well of African Americans: Measuring Complimentary Stereotypes and Negative Prejudice

Racial prejudice toward African Americans has been largely measured and researched in terms of negative and hostile attitudes. However, there is considerable research to suggest the prevalence of evaluatively positive beliefs about Blacks (e.g., as athletic). A measure of Complimentary Stereotypes and Negative Prejudice (CSNP) is validated through exploratory and confirmatory factor analyses across 6 samples (N = 4,404). The 30-item CSNP consists of 2 subscales. The Complimentary Stereotypes (CS) scale measures evaluatively favorable stereotypes of Blacks in domains of athleticism, musical and rhythmic ability, and social/sexual competence. The Negative Prejudice (NP) scale corresponds with traditional hostile attitudes related to the inferiority of Blacks, opposition to race-related policies, and aversion to interracial contact. The CSNP subscales demonstrated appropriate convergent and discriminant validity with other measures of prejudice, and 2 additional studies supported the validity of CS and NP in evaluating positive and negative subgroups of African Americans.