偏见的自我调节研究述评

偏见不是不可避免的。个体能够依靠自我调节来控制偏见反应。拥有高控制偏见内部动机且低控制偏见外部动机的个体能最有效地控制偏见, 包括内隐偏见。这类个体的控制偏见动机的内化程度最高, 而内化程度高的控制偏见动机能自动起作用。四分过程模型能分离出自动过程和控制过程对内隐测量任务的影响, 因此能更好地解释自动激活的联接和自我调节是如何交互影响行为的。未来的研究应进一步探索如何发展控制偏见内部动机和对内隐控制偏见动机的测量等问题。     

Prejudice Control and Interracial Relations: The Role of Motivation to Respond Without Prejudice

ABSTRACT A decade of research indicates that individual differences in motivation to respond without prejudice have important implications for the control of prejudice and interracial relations. In reviewing this work, we draw on W. Mischel and Y. Shoda's (1995, 1999) Cognitive–Affective Processing System (CAPS) to demonstrate that people with varying sources of motivation to respond without prejudice respond in distinct ways to situational cues, resulting in differing situation–behavior profiles in interracial contexts. People whose motivation is self-determined (i.e., the internally motivated) effectively control prejudice across situations and strive for positive interracial interactions. In contrast, people who respond without prejudice to avoid social sanction (i.e., the primarily externally motivated) consistently fail at regulating difficult to control prejudice and respond with anxiety and avoidance in interracial interactions. We further consider the nature of the cognitive–affective units of personality associated with motivation to respond without prejudice and their implications for the quality of interracial relations.     

Internal motivation to respond without prejudice and automatic egalitarian goal activation

Past research has shown that people who are motivated primarily by their internalized beliefs to respond without prejudice are less likely to show implicit forms of racial bias (e.g., Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835-848). We tested the idea that such individuals inhibit implicit race bias by automatically activating egalitarian goals. Study 1 showed that participants high in internal motivation but low in external motivation (i.e., primary internal) displayed more egalitarianism, but only after they had been subliminally exposed to African American faces. Study 2 showed that primary internal motivation was associated with lower levels of automatic stereotype activation and this effect was mediated by egalitarian goal activation. These results provide converging evidence that the relationship between primary internal motivation and low levels of implicit bias stems from the activation of egalitarian goals. We discuss the implications of these findings for efforts to reduce cognitive and affective forms of implicit racial bias.     

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.     

Relatively Socially Acceptable Prejudice Within and Between Societies

Two studies investigated the relative social acceptability of certain prejudices within a society (Study 1) and between societies (Study 2), using (less) internal motivation to control prejudice as an indicator of social acceptability. In Study 1, White British participants reported less internal motivation to control prejudice against people with schizophrenia than against Black people. In Study 2, Jamaican participants reported less internal motivation to control anti‐homosexual prejudice than did either British participants or American participants. Other differences in motivation to control prejudice were smaller, absent, or at odds with this difference, indicating that differences in motivation to control anti‐homosexual prejudice were not solely due to cultural differences concerning motivation to control prejudice in general. Results are discussed in terms of novel findings, relevance to the literature and possible future research. Copyright © 2011 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

Ironic effects of antiprejudice messages: how motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice

Although prejudice-reduction policies and interventions abound, is it possible that some of them result in the precise opposite of their intended effect--an increase in prejudice? We examined this question by exploring the impact of motivation-based prejudice-reduction interventions and assessing whether certain popular practices might in fact increase prejudice. In two experiments, participants received detailed information on, or were primed with, the goal of prejudice reduction; the information and primes either encouraged autonomous motivation to regulate prejudice or emphasized the societal requirement to control prejudice. Ironically, motivating people to reduce prejudice by emphasizing external control produced more explicit and implicit prejudice than did not intervening at all. Conversely, participants in whom autonomous motivation to regulate prejudice was induced displayed less explicit and implicit prejudice compared with no-treatment control participants. We outline strategies for effectively reducing prejudice and discuss the detrimental consequences of enforcing antiprejudice standards.     

(Why) do I think what you think? Epistemic social tuning and implicit prejudice

This research examines whether people who experience epistemic motivation (i.e., a desire to acquire knowledge) came to have implicit attitudes consistent with the apparent beliefs of another person. People had lower implicit prejudice when they experienced epistemic motivation and interacted with a person who ostensibly held egalitarian beliefs (Experiments 1 and 2). Implicit prejudice was not affected when people did not experience epistemic motivation. Further evidence shows that this tuning of implicit attitudes occurs when beliefs are endorsed by another person, but not when they are brought to mind via means that do not imply that person's endorsement (Experiment 3). Results suggest that implicit attitudes of epistemically motivated people tune to the apparent beliefs of others to achieve shared reality.     

Reducing Implicit Prejudice

Implicit prejudices are social preferences that exist outside of conscious awareness or control. In this review, we summarize evidence for three mechanisms that influence the expression of implicit prejudice: associative change, contextual change, and change in control over implicit prejudice. We then review the evidence (or lack thereof) for answers to five open issues in implicit prejudice reduction research: (1) what shows effectiveness in real‐world application; (2) what doesn't work for implicit prejudice reduction; (3) what interventions produce long‐term changes in implicit prejudice; (4) measurement diversity in implicit prejudice reduction research; and (5) the relationship between implicit prejudice and behavior. Addressing these issues provides an agenda for clarifying the conditions and implications of reducing implicit prejudice.     

Implicit motivation to control prejudice

This research examines whether spontaneous, unintentional discriminatory behavior can be moderated by an implicit (nonconscious) motivation to control prejudice. We operationalize implicit motivation to control prejudice (IMCP) in terms of an implicit negative attitude toward prejudice (NAP) and an implicit belief that oneself is prejudiced (BOP). In the present experiment, an implicit stereotypic association of Blacks (vs. Whites) with weapons was positively correlated with the tendency to “shoot” armed Black men faster than armed White men (the “Shooter Bias”) in a computer simulation. However, participants relatively high in implicit negative attitude toward prejudice showed no relation between the race-weapons stereotype and the shooter bias. Implicit belief that oneself is prejudiced had no direct effect on this relation, but the interaction of NAP and BOP did. Participants who had a strong association between self and prejudice (high BOP) but a weak association between prejudice and bad (low NAP) showed the strongest relation between the implicit race-weapons stereotype and the Shooter Bias, suggesting that these individuals freely employed their stereotypes in their behavior.     

Just Think About It: Mindfulness, Sexism, and Prejudice Toward Feminists

This study examined the relation between mindfulness, sexist motivations and beliefs, and prejudice toward women who violate traditional gender roles—namely feminists. In a preliminary study, 672 (251 men, 421 women) undergraduates from a United States Midwestern university completed a measure of mindfulness and warmth toward feminists and consistent with hypotheses, more mindfulness was associated with more warmth toward feminists. Extending this initial finding to the main study, 653 (273 men, 380 women) undergraduates from a U.S. Midwestern university completed measures of mindfulness, motivation to respond without sexism, ambivalent sexism, and warmth toward feminists. Consistent with hypotheses, compared to women participants, men participants were lower on internal motivation to respond without sexism, higher on hostile and benevolent sexism and less warm toward feminists. Also consistent with hypotheses, for men participants, more mindfulness was associated with higher internal motivation to respond without sexism, less benevolent sexism, and more warmth toward feminists. In contrast, for women participants, more mindfulness was only associated with less hostile sexism. Finally, a path analysis revealed that the positive relation between mindfulness and warmth toward feminists for men participants was partially mediated by more internal motivation to respond without sexism (i.e., a significant indirect effect), but not by less sexist beliefs. Implications for mindfulness, sexism, and prejudice more generally are discussed.     

Accounting for successful control of implicit racial bias: the roles of association activation, response monitoring, and overcoming bias

Individuals who are primarily internally motivated to respond without prejudice show less bias on implicit measures than individuals who are externally motivated or unmotivated to respond without prejudice. However, it is not clear why these individuals exhibit less implicit bias than others. We used the Quad model to examine motivation-based individual differences in three processes that have been proposed to account for this effect: activation of associations, overcoming associations, and response monitoring. Participants completed an implicit measure of stereotyping (Study 1) or racial attitudes (Study 2). Modeling of the data revealed that individuals who were internally (but not externally) motivated to respond without prejudice showed enhanced detection and reduced activation of biased associations, suggesting that these processes may be key to achieving unbiased responding.     

Motivation to Control Prejudice as a Mediator of Identity and Affirmative Action Attitudes1

Affirmative action is a divisive issue in society today. Attitudes toward affirmative action vary both between and within ethnic and racial groups, with Whites exhibiting the majority of negative attitudes. Researchers have suggested a variety of psychological explanations for differences in attitudes toward affirmative action (e.g., racism, self‐interest, fairness). The current study investigates whether motivation to control prejudice acts as a mediator of ethnic/racial identity and Whites’ attitudes toward affirmative action. Support was found for the mediating role of motivation to control prejudice for several aspects of ethnic and racial identity and affirmative action attitudes. Limitations of the study are discussed, as are topics for future research.     

Age, Race, and Implicit Prejudice: Using Process Dissociation to Separate the Underlying Components

ABSTRACT— Older adults express greater prejudice than younger adults, but it is not clear why. In a community-based sample, we found that older White adults demonstrated more racial prejudice on an implicit measure, the race Implicit Association Test, than did younger adults. Process-dissociation procedures indicated that this difference in implicit prejudice was due to older adults having less control of their automatic prejudicial associations rather than stronger automatic prejudicial associations. Furthermore, this age difference in control was mediated by age-related deficits in inhibitory ability. White participants showed stronger automatic prejudicial associations than did Black participants.     

Prejudice as Self‐Control Failure1

Research has suggested that whereas stereotypical attitudes may be automatically activated, the response to these stereotypes can be controlled. Anything that interferes with self‐control may result in more biased behavior. The ego strength model hypothesizes that after exerting self‐control, subsequent self‐control performance will suffer. Hence, depletion of ego strength may lead to increased prejudice. In 2 studies, depletion was found only to affect individuals who normally try to control their prejudicial responses. Participants who do not normally try to control their use of stereotypes were equally prejudiced, regardless of their level of ego strength. The results have implications for prejudice and stereotyping, as well as models of self‐control.     

Motivational influences on compliance with and consequences of instructions to suppress stereotypes

Two experiments investigated differences in compliance with instructions to suppress stereotypes as a function of prejudice-related motivations. In Experiment 1, only participants identified as high in motivation to control prejudice [Dunton, B. C., & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 316-326] complied with suppression instructions. These participants experienced post-suppression rebound effects, but only if they were also high in prejudice. In Experiment 2, only participants identified as high in external motivation to respond without prejudice [Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832] complied with instructions to suppress. These participants later experienced stereotype rebound effects, but only if they were also low in internal motivation to respond without prejudice. These findings suggest that motivational factors play an important role in determining not only the outcome of suppression, but also the choice to attempt suppression in the first place.     

The Suppression and Justification of Prejudice as a Function of Political Orientation

Politically conservative (versus liberal) individuals generally report more prejudice towards various low‐status out‐groups. Three studies examined whether prejudice suppression factors—specifically, internal and external motivation to suppress (IMS and EMS, respectively) prejudice—can help explain the relationship between political orientation and prejudice. Study 1 showed that IMS and EMS partially mediated the relationship between political orientation and affective prejudice towards Arabs. Study 2 demonstrated that when justification [right‐wing authoritarianism (RWA) and social dominance orientation] and suppression (IMS and EMS) factors are simultaneously tested as mediators, only RWA partially mediated the relationship between political orientation and prejudice towards deviant (e.g. gay men) out‐groups, whereas RWA and IMS fully mediated the relationship between political orientation and prejudice towards derogated out‐groups (e.g. Blacks). Intriguingly, IMS rendered social dominance orientation effects non‐significant for derogated out‐groups. Study 3 showed that anticipating an out‐group interaction (with a Black or lesbian confederate) diminished the mediational contribution of IMS in the political orientation–prejudice relationship because of increased IMS among participants; yet the increases in IMS did not completely eliminate differences in prejudice as a function of political orientation. Ultimately, these three studies demonstrate that suppression (in addition to justification) factors do help explain the relationship between political orientation and prejudice. Copyright © 2013 European Association of Personality Psychology.     

Community norms about suppression of AIDS-related prejudice and perceptions of stigma by people with HIV or AIDS

We investigated the relationship between community motivations to control AIDS-related prejudice and the experience of stigma by community members with HIV or AIDS, using self-reports from 203 New England residents with HIV or AIDS and 2,444 randomly selected residents of the same New England communities. Multilevel regression analyses revealed that the disclosure concerns of participants with HIV or AIDS were lower in communities where residents were motivated by personal values to control AIDS-related prejudice, and were higher in communities where residents were motivated by social pressure to control AIDS-related prejudice. Reported experiences with discrimination and exclusion were unrelated to community motivations. The results of our study suggest that external and internal pressures to control prejudice shape the experience of stigmatization.     

Self-regulation and social pressure reduce prejudiced responding and increase the motivation to be non-prejudiced

Self-regulation constrains the expression of prejudice, but when self-regulation falters, the immediate environment can act as an external source of prejudice regulation. This hypothesis derives from work demonstrating that external controls and internal self-regulation can prompt goal pursuit in the absence of self-imposed controls. Across four studies, we found support for this complementary model of prejudice regulation. In Study 1, self-regulatory fatigue resulted in less motivation to be non-prejudiced, compared to a non-fatigued control. In Study 2, strong (vs. weak) perceived social pressure was related to greater motivation to be non-prejudiced. In Study 3, dispositional self-regulation predicted non-prejudice motivation when perceived social pressure was weak or moderate, but not when it was strong. Finally, in Study 4 self-regulatory fatigue increased prejudice when social pressure was weak but not when it was strong.     

An Expectancy/Value Perspective on the Demotivating Effects of Prejudice

This study examined whether expecting prejudice is demotivating. Women were led to believe they were being evaluated for a co‐manager position. They were randomly assigned to receive information that the evaluator held negative attitudes toward women or that he did not. We hypothesized that compared to women led to believe that the evaluator was unprejudiced, women led to believe the evaluator was prejudiced would: (a) have lower expectations for being chosen as co‐manager; (b) place less value on being chosen as co‐manager; and (c) be less motivated to perform a task that would influence selection as co‐manager. We predicted that the effect of prejudice on motivation would be mediated by expectations and valuing of success. Results were consistent with predictions.