Self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities

This research examines self-stereotyping in the context of multiple social identities and shows that self-stereotyping is a function of stereotyped expectancies held in particular relationships. Participants reported how others evaluated their math and verbal ability and how they viewed their own ability when their gender or ethnicity was salient. Asian American women (Experiment 1) and European Americans (Experiment 2) exhibited knowledge of stereotyped social expectancies and corresponding self-stereotyping associated with their more salient identity. African Americans (Experiment 3) exhibited some knowledge of stereotyped social expectancies but no corresponding self-stereotyping. Correlational evidence and a 4th experiment suggest that self-stereotyping is mediated by the degree to which close others are perceived to endorse stereotypes as applicable to the self.     

Silent or Talking in the Classroom: Implicit Self-Stereotyping Among Asian and White Students

In academic settings, Asian students are often described as less talkative than White students. We provide an account of this phenomenon based on research on cultural influences on the self, self-categorization, and implicit social cognition. We hypothesized that the classroom context activates a process of implicit self-stereotyping. Asian and White participants were asked to imagine themselves in a classroom or leisure context. Next, they completed Implicit Association Tests assessing their self-concept, ethnic stereotypes, and ethnic identification. In the classroom context only, ethnic stereotypes accounted for a more reserved self-concept among Asian participants and a more talkative self-concept among White participants.     

Endorsing a negative in-group stereotype as a self-protective strategy: Sacrificing the group to save the self

This work examined if stigmatized targets will embrace negative in-group stereotypes in order to protect their self-esteem from the threat of stereotypic failures. All studies focused on the stereotype that women have lower math ability than men. In Study 1, women who failed a math test showed buffered self-esteem if they were first given the opportunity to endorse this stereotype. Study 2 replicated this effect and showed that women, but not men, increased their endorsement of this stereotype following math failure. Study 3 showed that the tendency to embrace this stereotype in response to failure was most pronounced among women with high trait self-esteem. Together, these findings suggest that there are contexts in which stigmatized individuals can protect their self-esteem in the face of stereotypic failures by embracing the very stereotypes that would have predicted their failure.     

When is a compliment not a compliment? Evaluating expressions of positive stereotypes

Unlike negative stereotypes, positive stereotypes are often perceived as admirable qualities, and expressions of such beliefs may be intended as compliments toward group members. Two experiments were conducted to examine how the targets of positive stereotypes evaluate others who express such stereotypic “compliments.” In Study 1, Black participants evaluated a White student who praised the athletic ability of African Americans more negatively than a control condition. In Study 2, Black and White participants watched an interracial interaction that involved the White actor expressing positive stereotypes or a control interaction with no stereotypes. In the positive stereotype condition, Black participants evaluated the White actor and the interaction as a whole more negatively than did White participants, but there were no differences in the control condition. The implications for the perpetuation of interracial distrust and avoidance are discussed.     

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.     

Affective regulation of implicitly measured stereotypes and attitudes: Automatic and controlled processes

Three experiments indicate that affective cues regulate expression of implicitly measured stereotypes and attitudes. In Experiment 1, negative mood led to less stereotypic bias on the weapon-identification task [Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 181-192] than positive mood. In Experiment 2, negative mood led to less implicitly measured racial prejudice than positive mood. In Experiment 3, negative, relative to positive, mood decreased women’s implicitly measured preference for the arts over math. Process-dissociation analyses suggested that affect regulated automatic attitude and stereotype activation rather than controlled influences on attitude expression. The results show that mood can shape even rudimentary forms of cognition.     

When do counterstereotypic ingroup members inspire versus deflate? The effect of successful professional women on young women's leadership self-concept

Three experiments tested whether and when exposure to counterstereotypic ingroup members enhances women's implicit leadership self-concept. Participants read about professional women leaders framed as similar to versus different from most women (Experiment 1) or having the same versus different collegiate background as participants (Experiment 3). Experiment 2 manipulated similarity by giving false feedback about participants' similarity to women leaders. In all cases, seeing women leaders reduced implicit self-stereotyping relative to controls but only when they were portrayed as similar to one's ingroup (Experiment 1) and oneself (Experiments 2-3). Leaders portrayed as dissimilar either had no effect on self-beliefs (Experiment 1 and 3) or increased implicit self-stereotyping (Experiment 2). Dissimilar leaders also deflated participants' career goals and explicit leadership beliefs (Experiment 3). Finally, implicit self-beliefs became less stereotypic regardless of whether women believed the similarity feedback, but explicit self-beliefs changed only when they believed the feedback to be true (Experiment 2).     

American = White?

Six studies investigated the extent to which American ethnic groups (African, Asian, and White) are associated with the category "American." Although strong explicit commitments to egalitarian principles were expressed in Study 1, Studies 2-6 consistently revealed that both African and Asian Americans as groups are less associated with the national category "American" than are White Americans. Under some circumstances, a dissociation between mean levels of explicit beliefs and implicit responses emerged such that an ethnic minority was explicitly regarded to be more American than were White Americans, but implicit measures showed the reverse pattern (Studies 3 and 4). In addition, Asian American participants themselves showed the American = White effect, although African Americans did not (Study 5). The American = White association was positively correlated with the strength of national identity in White Americans. Together, these studies provide evidence that to be American is implicitly synonymous with being White.     

The Interpersonal Basis of Stereotype-Relevant Self-Views

ABSTRACT Recent research examining the interpersonal basis of self-stereotyping is considered from the perspective of Cognitive–Affective Personality System (CAPS) theory. The reviewed work shows that individuals tend to see themselves in a stereotypic manner when interacting with someone who engenders affiliative motivation and is thought to hold stereotypic views of their group. Evidence suggesting that this context-dependent self-stereotyping is extended temporally through future psychologically similar interactions and the invocation of significant others thought to endorse stereotypes is also discussed. These findings and the theoretical framework that stimulated them strongly resonate with the notion of if … then contingencies of the self articulated in CAPS theory. The implications of each viewpoint for the other are discussed.     

Changing explicit and implicit attitudes: The case of self-esteem

Three experiments investigated predictions concerning asymmetrical patterns of implicit and explicit self-esteem change. Specifically, we investigated the influence of knowledge about the own self that is momentarily salient as well as the influence of affective valence associated with the self in memory on implicit and explicit self-esteem. The latter was induced by evaluative conditioning, the former by directed thinking about oneself. We found that while evaluative conditioning changed implicit but not explicit self-esteem (Experiment 1), thinking about the own self altered explicit but not implicit self-esteem (Experiment 2). Moreover, in a third experiment, it could be shown that the effect of evaluative conditioning can spill over to the explicit level when participants are asked to focus on their feelings prior to making their self-report judgements (Experiment 3). Implications of our results are discussed in terms of recent controversies regarding dual-process models of attitudes and associative versus propositional modes of information processing.     

Stereotypes as Pseudocontingencies

We introduce a heuristic called pseudocontingencies (PCs) as an alternative account of various stereotyping phenomena. PCs give rise to the expectation that attributes are correlated based solely on asymmetries in attribute base rates. Attributes that are encountered frequently and attributes that are encountered rarely are perceived to be correlated with each other. Such differences in information densities are typical of many stereotyped targets, including the self vs. others, the in-group vs. out-groups and majority vs. minority groups. Evidence is reviewed for PCs underlying illusory correlations, confirmation biases, gender stereotypes, Simpson’s paradox, and in procedures used for implicit stereotype measurement. PCs are shown to predict specific patterns of self-enhancement and self-depreciation, the effects of intergroup contact on in-group biases and the readiness to infer stereotypes from aggregated “big-data”. Although PCs can lead to seriously flawed stereotypic expectations, they afford an efficient and possibly adaptive inference strategy.     

Implications for the self determine benevolence and self-protection in intergroup relations

People often favor groups they belong to over those beyond the in-group boundary. Yet, in-group favoritism does not always occur, and people will sometimes favor an out-group over the in-group. We delineate theoretically when in-group favoritism (i.e., self-protection) and out-group favoritism (i.e., benevolence) should occur. In two experiments, groups’ relative status and competence stereotypes were manipulated; groups’ outcomes were non-contingent in Experiment 1 and contingent in Experiment 2. When allocating reward, members of a low-status group were self-protective, favoring the in-group over the out-group under both non-contingent and contingent outcomes. Those with high status benevolently favored the out-group when outcomes were non-contingent, but were self-protective with contingent outcomes. People were willing to engage in social activities with an out-group member regardless of competence. However, when task collaboration had implications for the self, those with low status preferred competent over less competent out-group members. Traits of high status targets were differentiated by those with low status in both experiments, whereas those with high status differentiated low-status members’ traits only when outcomes were contingent. A general principle fits the data: The implications of intergroup responses for the self determine benevolence and self-protection.     

Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups

According to system justification theory, people internalize and perpetuate systemic forms of inequality, even though it sometimes means harboring preferences for members of higher status outgroups. In Study 1, students from a high status (but not a low status) university exhibited significant ingroup favoritism on the IAT, an automatic evaluative measure. Furthermore, for students at the high status university, implicit ingroup bias was positively correlated with implicit self-esteem. For students at the low status university, implicit acceptance of consensual stereotypes concerning academic and extracurricular characteristics was associated with implicit outgroup favoritism. In Study 2, Latinos and Asian Americans exhibited significant outgroup favoritism on an unobtrusive behavioral measure by choosing White interaction partners over members of their own groups. In Study 3, parents named newborn children disproportionately after their fathers (compared with their mothers) and published birth announcements for boys slightly more often than for girls. Thus, we observed evidence of system justification on implicit or unobtrusive measures in three different socially disadvantaged groups.     

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.     

Using the implicit association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept

Experiment 1 used the Implicit Association Test (IAT; A. G. Greenwald, D. E. McGhee, & J. L. K. Schwartz, 1998) to measure self-esteem by assessing automatic associations of self with positive or negative valence. Confirmatory factor analysis (CFA) showed that two IAT measures defined a factor that was distinct from, but weakly correlated with, a factor defined by standard explicit (self-report) measures of self-esteem. Experiment 2 tested known-groups validity of two IAT gender self-concept measures. Compared with well-established explicit measures, the IAT measures revealed triple the difference in measured masculinity-femininity between men and women. Again, CFA revealed construct divergence between implicit and explicit measures. Experiment 3 assessed the self-esteem IAT's validity in predicting cognitive reactions to success and failure. High implicit self-esteem was associated in the predicted fashion with buffering against adverse effects of failure on two of four measures.     

Relations of self-esteem concerns, group identification, and self-stereotyping to in-group favoritism

In 2 studies, the author examined the effect of collective self-esteem (CSE; J. Crocker & R. Luhtanen, 1993) on people's willingness to display in-group favoritism. To test that self-esteem hypothesis, he measured public CSE, rather than private CSE, because the former parallels a threat to social identity, a state believed to motivate in-group favoritism. Furthermore, the author explored whether group identification and self-stereotyping moderated the effect of public CSE on in-group favoritism. The participants were 92 British and Dutch university employees. As expected, participants high in public CSE displayed more in-group favoritism than did those low in public CSE. Moreover, group identification and self-stereotyping appeared to moderate the effect of CSE.     

Motivated self-stereotyping: heightened assimilation and differentiation needs result in increased levels of positive and negative self-stereotyping

This research was conducted to explore the impact of assimilation and differentiation needs on content-specific self-stereotyping. According to optimal distinctiveness theory (M. B. Brewer, 1991), social identities serve the function of satisfying individuals' need for assimilation (in-group inclusion) and their need for differentiation (distinctiveness from others). It was proposed that one of the ways optimal social identities are maintained is through self-stereotyping. In 3 studies, the needs for assimilation and differentiation were experimentally manipulated, and support was found for increased self-stereotyping in response to heightened need arousal across both self-report and behavioral measures and across different social groups. Results also demonstrated that only those participants who were highly identified with their in-group were willing to engage in negative self-stereotyping.     

"I am us": negative stereotypes as collective threats

Collective threat is the fear that an in-group member's behavior might reinforce a negative stereotype of one's group. In a field study, self-reported collective threat was higher in stereotyped minorities than in Whites and was linked to lower self-esteem in both groups. In 3 experimental studies, a potentially poor performance by an in-group member on a stereotype-relevant task proved threatening, as evidenced by lower self-esteem among minority students in 2 experiments and women in a 3rd experiment. The latter study demonstrated the generality of collective threat. Collective threat also undermined academic performance and affected self-stereotyping, stereotype activation, and physical distancing from the in-group member. Results further suggest that group identification plays a role in whether people use an avoidance or challenge strategy in coping with collective threat. Implications for theories of social identity and stigmatization are discussed.