Textbook Notes (270,000)
CA (160,000)
UTSC (20,000)
Psychology (10,000)
PSYC12H3 (300)
Chapter

ALL READINGS


Department
Psychology
Course Code
PSYC12H3
Professor
Michael Inzlicht

This preview shows pages 1-3. to view the full 15 pages of the document.
32625638
PSYC12 - Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1996
Role of cognitive miser = engaging only in the amount of thought necessary to produce an
apparently adequate understanding of others
Stereotypes = automatic, occur without awareness
Cognitive processes are said to be automatic when they occur without the perceiver's conscious
intent or awareness of them, without the perceiver's ability to control them, or with an efficiency
that requires little investment of the perceiver's limited cognitive resources
Personal prejudices (e.g., racial prejudice) may make certain bases for social categorization
chronically salient, so when members of these targeted categories are encountered, they tend to
be categorized routinely in terms of this particular group membership rather than other equally
applicable categories
once stereotypic expectations are formed, they tend to bias subsequent information processing in a
confirmatory manner
when people are committed to egalitarian, nonprejudiced standards and their thoughts, feelings, or
behavior seem to violate these standards, they tend to become self-focused and direct effort at
reducing this discrepancy
low-prejudice persons feel bad when their reactions to out-group members contravene their own
nonprejudiced standards, so they are motivated to avoid reacting in stereotypic or prejudiced ways
In order to self regulate in making stereotypes, a possible strategy is simply to make direct
adjustments to one's judgments and conclusions in the direction opposite to the presumed bias
Wegner et.al – model of stereotype suppression = starts with the realization that for any control
process to be effective, it must be able both to test the status of the environment and to operate on
the environment when the test process yields less than satisfactory results
Monitoring process = automatic, operating process = effortful, therefore
For example, Wegner (1994) reviews evidence from studies of (1) attempts to concentrate, (2)
attempts to control one's mood, (3) attempts to relax, (4) attempts to control pain, (5) attempts to
fall asleep, and many others
Time pressure, distraction and preoccupation, affective states, and even alcohol are factors that
may impair thought control by reducing the availability of attentional resources needed to inhibit
unwanted thoughts
As long as the operating process is in place and functioning, mental control can often be
successfully accomplished, but if the effortful operating process is impeded, suspended, or
abandoned, the unchecked monitoring process can produce hyperaccessibility of unwanted mental
contents, setting the stage for counterintentional reactions
Social perceivers can successfully inhibit stereotypic responses while they are actively striving to do
so, but once they stop making this effort, the stereotypes return to affect their thoughts and actions
to an even greater degree

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

While the operating process is working, it can keep the unwanted thoughts successfully out of
awareness, but if it is interrupted by a cognitive load, or if it simply recedes or becomes inactive
because of diminishing motivation to engage in suppression, then rebound effects can begin to
emerge
telling people that they must justify their judgments of an out-group member may instill a concern
about being labeled "prejudiced" that results in conscious attempts to avoid stereotypes rather
than conscious attempts to be as systematic and thorough as possible.
Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: THE IAT TEST
IAT measures 2 target concepts that appear in a 2 choice task and the attribute in a 2nd task
**know what the procedure/design of the IAT is
Implicit attitudes are manifest as actions or judgments that are under the control of automatically
activated evaluation, without the performer's awareness of that causation
Seeks to measure implicit attitudes by measuring their underlying automatic evaluation
IAT may reveal attitudes and other automatic associations even for people who prefer not to
express those attitudes
IAT assesses the association between a target-concept discrimination and an attribute
dimension
The procedure starts with the introduction of the target-concept discrimination. (eg. First names
that is recognizable as being attributed to Black/White)
Respond one category to be responded by left hand/other by right hand
Then introduce attribute dimension – form of a 2 category discrimination as well
(eg.pleasant/unpleasant)

Only pages 1-3 are available for preview. Some parts have been intentionally blurred.

3rd step - the two dimensions are superimposed, in which stimuli for target and attribute
discriminations appear on alternate trials
4th step – the respondent learns a reversal of response assignments for the target discrimination
5th (final) step combines the attribute discrimination (not changed in response assignments) with
this reversed target discrimination
An IAT effect is defined as the difference in mean latency between these two conditions (non-
compatible minus compatible)
In Experiment 1, IAT effects indicating more positive attitudes toward flowers than insects or toward
musical instruments than weapons were expected and were also quite clearly obtained. That is,
subjects performed faster for flower + pleasant or instrument + pleasant combinations than for
insect + pleasant or weapon + pleasant
Better performance in the flower + pleasant condition than in the insect + pleasant condition is
taken to indicate a stronger association between flowers and pleasant meaning
More favorable feelings toward flowers and instruments vs. insects and weapons
Explicit measures for these conditions were weakly correlated compared with implicit attitude
scores
Compatible task combinations were performed rapidly vs. non-compatible task combinations were
performed slowly
Experiment 2's data was that ethnically Korean subjects would find it more difficult to perform the
Japanese + pleasant than the Korean + pleasant combination and that the reverse should be true
for ethnically Japanese subjects
There were no other significant effects in the design that included also Japanese name length (first
vs. second sub experiment) and order of administration of the task combinations
The IAT effect was very similar in magnitude for the first sub experiment with full length Japanese
names) and the second one with truncated Japanese names
Only the language and family measures discriminated Japanese American from Korean American
subjects with greater effect sizes
Overall, in Experiment 2, it can be seen that the IAT was most effective in diagnosing ethnicity for
subjects who were highly involved with their Asian American culture. These findings indicate that
the IAT is sensitive to the expected covariation of positivity of ethnic-name-to evaluation
associations with level of exposure to the culture of one's ethnic group
Experiment 3 = used the IAT procedure to measure an implicit attitude that might not readily be
detected through explicit self-report measures. Experiment 3's IAT method combined the tasks of
classifying Black versus White names and discriminating pleasant versus unpleasant word
meanings
Except for the replacement of Japanese and Korean names with Black and White names,
Experiment 3 was virtually identical to Experiment 2. Experiment 3 also contained two
subexperiments, the first using male names and the second using female names
Feeling thermometer and semantic differential measures were used (similar to prev. 2 experiments)
Results: Whites showed an implicit attitude difference between the Black and White racial
categories
There was a faster response between White and pleasant than for Black and pleasant
All 3 experiments showed that IAT measures can affectively measure implicit attitudes & are highly
sensitive to evaluative discriminations
IAT measures & self-report measures provide important indications that the IAT may be more
resistant to self-presentational factors than are the explicit measures.
The much greater variation across experiments in effect sizes of explicit measures, relative to those
of the IAT measures, suggests that the explicit measures might have been more responsive to self-
presentational forces that can mask subjects' attitudes
Convergent validity - established by demonstrating that it displays theoretically expected
correlations with other measures.
Discriminant Validity – IAT and the self-report measures assessed different constructs (implicit and
explicit attitudes) AND IAT procedure sensitive to differential familiarity
these two explicit measures were better correlated with each other (average r =.60) than they
were with the IAT measures of the same attitudes and were DIVERGENCE
You're Reading a Preview

Unlock to view full version