Patricia G. Devine

The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without prejudice.

Three studies examined the moderating role of motivations to respond without prejudice (e.g., internal and external) in expressions of explicit and implicit race bias. In all studies, participants reported their explicit attitudes toward Blacks. Implicit measures consisted of a sequential priming task (Study 1) and the Implicit Association Test (Studies 2 and 3). Study 3 used a cognitive busyness manipulation to preclude effects of controlled processing on implicit responses. In each study, explicit race bias was moderated by internal motivation to respond without prejudice, whereas implicit race bias was moderated by the interaction of internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Specifically, high internal, low external participants exhibited lower levels of implicit race bias than did all other participants. Implications for the development of effective self-regulation of race bias are discussed.

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

Neural Signals for the Detection of Unintentional Race Bias

We examined the hypothesis that unintentional race-biased responses may occur despite the activation of neural systems that detect the need for control. Participants completed a sequential priming task that induced race-biased responses on certain trials while electroencephalography was recorded. The error-related negativity (ERN) wave, a component of the event-related potential with an anterior cingulate generator, was assessed to index neural signals detecting the need for control. Responses attributed to race bias produced larger ERNs than responses not attributed to race bias. Although race-biased responses were prevalent across participants, those with larger ERNs to race-biased responses showed higher levels of control throughout the task (e.g., greater accuracy and slowed responding following errors). The results indicate that race-biased responses may be made despite the activation of neural systems designed to detect bias and to recruit controlled processing.

Individual differences in the activation and control of affective race bias as assessed by startle eyeblink response and self-report.

The activation and control of affective race bias were measured using startle eyeblink responses (Study 1) and self-reports (Study 2) as White American participants viewed White and Black faces. Individual differences in levels of bias were predicted using E. A. Plant and P. G. Devines (1998) Internal and External Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice scales (IMS/EMS). Among high-IMS participants, those low in EMS exhibited less affective race bias in their blink responses than other participants. In contrast, both groups of high-IMS participants exhibited less affective race bias in self-reported responses compared with low-IMS participants. Results demonstrate individual differences in implicit affective race bias and suggest that controlled, belief-based processes are more effectively implemented in deliberative responses (e.g., self-reports).

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.

Attitude importance and resistance to persuasion : It's not just the thought that counts

This research examined individual differences in attitude importance (J. A. Krosnick, 1988a) as a moderator of resistance to persuasion. In 2 studies, individuals who favored allowing gay people to serve openly in the military were aurally presented with a counterattitudinal message. Participants who considered their attitude high (vs. low) in personal importance were more resistant to the message. Process analyses revealed that both thought listings and self-reported affect mediated this attitude importance effect. A 2nd study, which also examined message quality, showed that both high - and low-importance individuals were more resistant to a weak (vs. strong) message. This effect was explained by the fact that the weak (vs. strong) message engendered more irritation and negative affective elaborations. Results highlight the role of attitude importance in motivating resistance to persuasive communications and reveal that the resistance process is both cognitive and affective. Implications for contemporary models of persuasion are discussed.

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.

A Dynamic Model of Guilt Implications for Motivation and Self-Regulation in the Context of Prejudice

Guilt is widely recognized as an important self-regulatory emotion, yet alternative theoretical accounts view guilt primarily as either a punishment cue or a pro-social motivator. Integrating these views, we propose that guilt functions dynamically to first provide a negative reinforcement cue associated with reduced approach motivation, which transforms into approach-motivated behavior when an opportunity for reparation presents itself. We tested this hypothesis in the context of racial prejudice. White subjects viewed a multiracial series of faces while cortical activity was recorded using electro-encephalography. Following bogus feedback indicating anti-Black responses, subjects reported elevated guilt, which was associated with changes in frontal cortical asymmetry indicating reduced approach motivation. When subjects were presented with an opportunity to engage in prejudice-reducing behavior, guilt predicted greater interest in prejudice reduction, which in turn was associated with an approach-related shift in frontal asymmetry. The results support a dynamic model in which guilt is associated with adaptive changes in motivation and behavior.

Individual differences in the regulation of intergroup bias: The role of conflict monitoring and neural signals for control.

Low-prejudice people vary considerably in their ability to regulate intergroup responses. The authors hypothesized that this variability arises from a neural mechanism for monitoring conflict between automatic race-biased tendencies and egalitarian intentions. In Study 1, they found that low-prejudice participants whose nonprejudiced responses are motivated by internal (but not external) factors exhibited better control on a stereotype-inhibition task than did participants motivated by a combination of internal and external factors. This difference was associated with greater conflict-monitoring activity, measured by event-related potentials, when responses required stereotype inhibition. Study 2 demonstrated that group differences were specific to response control in the domain of prejudice. Results indicate that conflict monitoring, a preconscious component of response control, accounts for variability in intergroup bias among low-prejudice participants.

Implicit prejudice and stereotyping: How automatic are they? Introduction to the special section.

This special issue of the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cogniition addresses issues of the measurement and the malleability of implicit prejudice and stereotypes. The findings raise fundamental questions about the assumptions underlying the assessment of implicit prejudice, particularly with regard to the widely used Implicit Association Test and the assumption of extant models of prejudice and stereotyping that implicit biases are automatically and invariantly activated when perceivers come in contact with members of stigmatized groups. Several of the articles show that contextual manipulations produce reductions in implicit manifestations of prejudice and stereotyping. The articles in this issue, in challenging conventional wisdom, are thought provoking and should be generative in the fields ongoing efforts to understand the role of implicit (and explicit) processes involved in prejudice and stereotyping.