When do stereotypes become really consensual? Investigating the group-based dynamics of the consensualization process

Although it has long been recognized that stereotypes achieve much of their force from being shared by members of social groups, relatively little empirical work has examined the process by which such consensus is reached. This paper tests predictions derived from self-categorization theory that stereotype consensus will be enhanced (a) by factors which make the shared social identity of perceivers salient and (b) by group interaction that is premised upon that shared identity. In Experiment 1 (N=40) the consensus of ingroup stereotypes is enhanced where an ingroup is judged after (rather than before) an outgroup. In Experiment 2 (N=80) when only one group is judged, group interaction is shown to enhance the consensus of outgroup stereotypes more than those of the ingroup—an apparent ‘outgroup consensus effect’. In Experiment 3 (N=135) this asymmetry is extinguished and group interaction found to produce equally high consensus in both ingroup and outgroup stereotypes when the ingroup is explicitly contrasted from an outgroup. Implications for alternative models of consensus development are discussed. © 1998 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.     

She Needs to See it to be it: The Importance of Same-Gender Athletic Role Models

Sex Roles - In four studies, we examined the importance of gender-matched athletic role models for women. Although both women and men may benefit most from exposure to high profile athletes in...     

Changing categorization of self can change emotions about outgroups

Drawing on Intergroup Emotions Theory [Mackie, D. M., Maitner, A. T., & Smith, E. R. (in press). Intergroup emotions theory. In T.D. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination, New York: Erlbaum.], we propose that a perceiver’s emotional reactions toward other social groups can change in response to situationally induced shifts in self-categorization. American students were led to self-categorize as Americans or as students and reported their anger and respect towards Muslims and police. Results indicated that in reaction to Muslims, participants felt more anger and less respect when categorized as Americans than when categorized as students. In reaction to police, participants felt less anger and more respect when categorized as Americans than when categorized as students. These results support and extend IET, and suggest that in addition to prejudice reduction interventions that focus on recategorization of the target, perceiver recategorization of the self is a viable means of changing emotional reactions to social targets.     

Of two minds: forming and changing valence-inconsistent implicit and explicit attitudes

Because different processes underlie implicit and explicit attitudes, we hypothesized that they are differentially sensitive to different kinds of information. We measured implicit and explicit attitudes over time, as different types of attitude-relevant information about a single attitude object were presented. As expected, explicit attitudes formed and changed in response to the valence of consciously accessible, verbally presented behavioral information about the target. In contrast, implicit attitudes formed and changed in response to the valence of subliminally presented primes, reflecting the progressive accretion of attitude object-evaluation pairings. As a consequence, when subliminal primes and behavioral information were of opposite valence, people formed implicit and explicit attitudes of conflicting valence.     

Evidence for the regulatory function of intergroup emotion: Emotional consequences of implemented or impeded intergroup action tendencies

If intergroup emotions are functional, successfully implementing an emotion-linked behavioral tendency should discharge the emotion, whereas impeding the behavioral tendency should intensify the emotion. We investigated the emotional consequences of satisfying or thwarting emotionally induced intergroup behavioral intentions. Study 1 showed that if an attack on the ingroup produced anger, retaliation increased satisfaction, but if an attack produced fear, retaliation increased fear and guilt. Study 2 showed that outgroup-directed anger instigated via group insult dissipated when the ingroup successfully responded, but was exacerbated by an unsuccessful response. Responding in an emotionally appropriate way was satisfying, but ingroup failure to respond elicited anger directed at the ingroup. Study 3 showed that intergroup guilt following aggression was diminished when the ingroup made reparations, but was exacerbated when the ingroup aggressed again. Satisfying behavioral intentions associated with intergroup emotions fulfills a regulatory function.