attitudes as dominant responses—why public settings can exacerbate racial prejudice alan lambert...
TRANSCRIPT
Attitudes as Dominant Responses—Why Attitudes as Dominant Responses—Why Public Settings Can Exacerbate Racial Public Settings Can Exacerbate Racial
PrejudicePrejudice Alan Lambert
Washington University
Collaborators:
Keith PayneLarry JacobyLara ShafferAlison ChasteenSaera Khan
Today’s TalkToday’s TalkBrief literature review Attitudes as Dominant Response (ADR)
Model 3 Experiments
– Experiment 1: Impression formation– Experiment 2: Reaction time – Experiment 3: Stereotypic errors in weapon
identification
Unresolved issues/ongoing research
Experimental investigations of Experimental investigations of Private vs. Public ContextsPrivate vs. Public Contexts
Common in several domains (accountability, impression management, conformity, attitude change)
Surprisingly understudied in stereotyping area– Blanchard et al, 1991; Dutton & Yee, 1974;
Lambert et al. 1996; Monteith et al, 1996; Plant & Devine, 1998
– Mixed implications
Attitudes as Dominant Attitudes as Dominant Response ModelResponse Model
Lambert, Payne, Shaffer, Jacoby, Lambert, Payne, Shaffer, Jacoby, Chasteen, & Khan (under review)Chasteen, & Khan (under review)
Intuitive assumptions regarding stereotyping and public contexts may not be correct
Attempt to bridge two lines of research:– Impact of actual/imagined presence of others on task
performance (e.g. Triplett, 1898) – The literature on “attitude-behavior consistency” (e.g.
LaPiere, 1934)
Very brief overview of social Very brief overview of social facilitation literaturefacilitation literature
Is performance improved or impaired in “public” (audience or co-actor) conditions ?
Zajonc (1965; see also Hull, 1943): Habitual/dominant responses more likely in public
Resolution: – If dominant response yields correct answer: helps
performance– If dominant response yields incorrect answer: hurts
performance
WhyWhy would public settings make would public settings make dominant responses more likely?dominant responses more likely?
Audience
Generalized arousal/anxiety
Facilitation of dominant responses
Drive/arousal is an “intensifier” in that it “…adds fuel to whatever fire is burning at the time” (Allen et al. 1989)
?much debate as to exact reason
Important class of mental Important class of mental habits: attitudes habits: attitudes
Attitude object (S) evaluative reaction (R)
Idea of mental habits is not new (James, 1890) but…
We believe that we are the first (?) to make an explicit connection between the social facilitation literature and current research/theory on attitude activation and application
Implications of ADR modelImplications of ADR modelExtremely counterintuitive prediction:
– If stereotypic attitudes are mental habits, then:– use of these attitudes should be greater in
public compared to private, especially among participants high in social anxiety
– Thus: stereotype use could be higher in precisely the situation in which you’d think it’d be most unlikely!
Evaluative response
private
Implications of ADR modelImplications of ADR modelExtremely counterintuitive prediction:
– If stereotypic attitudes are mental habits, then:– use of these attitudes should be greater in
public compared to private, especially among participants high in social anxiety
– Thus: stereotype use could be higher in precisely the situation in which you’d think it’d be most unlikely!
Evaluative response
public
Experiment 1Experiment 1 Racial attitudes pre-measured two months earlier
– Exact way that sentiments are measured doesn’t matter (e.g. modern racism vs. social dominance)
Impression formation task– Subtly identified as Black in all cases– Ambiguous individuating information presented– Dependent variable: evaluative and trait ratings
Participants complete impressions under one of two sets: private vs. anticipated public
Post-test: Trait differences in social anxiety measured
Part one: Impression FormationIn this part, we will be asking you to form an impression of another individual…..
Part Two: Public DiscussionIn real life, we often share our judgments with other people. Therefore, after you have expressed your judgments, there will be a general discussion session with the other participants in the study today.
During this discussion, you will be asked to share and discuss your judgments with the other participants, who also participated in this task today…
Sample of anticipated public instructions
Experiment 1
Attitude-behavior consistency
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Results:
Relation between racial attitudes and judgments of target
Low anxiety participants
High anxiety participants
Experiment 1
Attitude-behavior consistency
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Experiment 2Experiment 2Participants complete Fazio-type attitude
RT task for a series of 30 attitude objects spanning large range of topics
– (e.g. affirmative action, legalization of marijuana, Al Gore, gun control, etc.)
Main DV: response latency to make “good” or “bad” responses
Experiment 1
Consistency of impressions with stereotypic attitudes
Experiment 2
Reaction time
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
faster
faster
slower
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Presentation of attitude object
Automatic processes(Fast and effortless)
Controlled processes(Slow and effortful)
Physical response
Factors that can reduce controlled processing:e.g. response deadlines, motivation and (we believe)public contexts in presence of arousal/anxiety
Reduction of Control Hypothesis
Results: Experiment 2Results: Experiment 2
Private Anticipated Public
Difference
High trait anxiety
Low trait anxiety
1975 1626
1381 1560
-349
+179
Regression analyses: F (1,46) = 4.37, p < .05 for 2-way Context X Anxiety interaction
Experiment 1
Attitude-behavior consistency
Experiment 2
Reaction time
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
faster
faster
slower
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Experiment 3:Experiment 3:Stereotypic errors in weapon identificationStereotypic errors in weapon identification
Based on paradigm used by Payne (2001, JPSP)– Amidou Diallo case
Congruent– black prime/threatening target– white prime/non-threatening target
Incongruent– black prime/non-threatening target– white prime/threatening target
Goal of our study:– Demonstrate generalizability of our counterintuitive findings– Leverage in teasing apart reason WHY using Jacoby’s (1991)
process dissociation procedure
500 ms
200 ms
100 ms
550 ms deadline
Design:
Prime (Black vs. White)
Target (gun vs. tool)
Context (Private vs. Anticipated public)
DV: Identification of object as gun vs. tool
Experiment 1
Attitude behavior consistency
Experiment 2
Reaction time
Experiment 3
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
faster
faster
slower
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Stereotypic Errors
more
more
more
Experiment 1
Attitude-behavior consistency
Experiment 2
Reaction time
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
faster
faster
slower
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Stereotypic Errors
more
more
more
Experiment 3
In this paradigm, participants have the goal of (a) responding “gun” when the target is, in fact, a gun, and (b) of responding “tool” only when the target was actually a tool.
– According to PDP, control is operationalized as the ability to flexibly monitor and control one’s responses, therefore to successfully discriminate between guns and lures.
What happens when control fails: – PDP assumes that participants use an alternate basis of responding, based on
the most accessible knowledge at the time. (race of prime exerts effect here)
PDP assumes that automatic and controlled processes are two independent bases for responding (cf. Jacoby et al. 1997; Hinztman & Curran, 1997)
Thumbnail sketch of process dissociation assumptions
Experiment 1
Attitude-behavior consistency
Experiment 2
Reaction time
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
faster
faster
slower
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Stereotypic Errors
more
more
more
Experiment 3
Process dissociation estimates
Cognitive control
Accessibility bias
no change
no change
no change
higher
lower
lower
Cognitive Control Estimates
Prime Race
Black White
Public
Private
.44 .45
.54 .51
Effect of context p < .05; no effect of prime race
Accessibility bias Estimatesprobability to respond “gun” when control fails
Prime Race
Black White
Public
Private
.38 .33
.41 .35
prime race p < .001; no effect of context
Note double dissociation, consistent with independence assumption:
• prime affects accessibility bias, but not control.
• context affects control, but not accessibility bias.
Experiment 1
Attitude-behavior consistency
Experiment 2
Reaction time
Hypothesis
“Habit strengthening”
Cognitive Load
Reduction of Control
stronger
stronger
stronger
faster
faster
slower
Predictions for Public Setting (compared to Private)
Stereotypic Errors
more
more
more
Experiment 3
Process dissociation estimates
Cognitive control
Accessibility bias
no change
no change
no change
higher
lower
lower
Role of AnxietyRole of Anxiety
Further analyses show that effects of context on control are moderated by anxiety (but complicated).– Translation: I couldn’t finish analyses prior
to SESP
SummarySummary Across three experiments: greater stereotyping in public
compared to private, primarily among high anxiety participants
Tested the viability of three process-level explanations (habit strengthening, cognitive load, reduction of control)
Our results speak more generally to the social facilitation literature. – Theorists have long debated the inability of the cognitive load
explanation to fully explain social facilitation effects– The reduction of control hypothesis may provide a more viable
explanation (?)
Caveats and directions for future Caveats and directions for future researchresearch
Explore different kinds of public contextsIs there something special about anxiety?
– Moderation vs. mediationIn the stereotyping area:
– Further integrate the “cognitive load” and social facilitation literatures
Congruent =
probability of responding gun on a congruent trial
(B prime gun)
C + A (1-C)
C = control
A = accessibility bias
Incongruent =
probability of responding gun on a incongruent trial
(B prime tool)
A (1-C)
Solving:
Estimates of C = congruent – incongruent
Estimates of A = incongruent/1-C