1. Stereotypes: Their Activation and Functionality May 9, 2005 Part 1

2. + SKIRT JANE Orienting stimulus Prime Target Male Female (500ms) (250ms) Blair & Banaji (1996)

3. PrimeValenceMasculineFeminine Trait Positive Logical Strong Decisive Caring Gentle Patient Negative Crude Loud Messy Fickle Passive Weak Nontrait Positive Engineer Trousers Sports Nurse Doll Skirt Negative Cigars Bald Tatoo Cosmetics Diet Laundry

4. Blair & Banaji (1996) Mean Response Time (ms) by Gender of Prime and Gender of Target

5. Blair & Banaji (1996) Mean Response Time (ms) by Prime-Target Congruency

6. McCrae, Mitchell, & Pendry (2002) Category verification as a function of name familiarity Familiar names –Male: John, Mark –Female: Sarah, Louise Unfamiliar names –Male: Felix, Isaac –Female: Glenda, Phyllis Error rates low (~3%) and unaffected by familiarity Mean Latency to Verify Gender of Name (ms)

7. McCrae, Mitchell, & Pendry (2002) Strength of Prime –Familiar versus Unfamiliar Names Gender of Prime –Male versus Female Names Gender of Target –Masculine versus Feminine Items Therefore, have stereotype-congruent trials –Phyllis/cosmetics (F/F), Mark/engineer (M/M) And stereotype-incongruent trials –Sarah/trousers (F/M), Isaac/skirt (M/F)

8. McCrae, Mitchell, & Pendry (2002) Mean Response Time (ms) by Name Familiarity and Prime-Target Congruency

9. Gawronski, Ehrenberg, Banse, Zukova, & Klauer (2003) Strength of Stereotypic Associations as Determinant of Category-Based Impression Formation Videotaped interview of male or female passerby Interview is terminated w/ excuse related to: –Domestic responsibility: pick up child from kindergarten, get to grocery since children will be home from school soon –Work responsibility: urgent business appointment, have to go to work Trait ratings of target on gender-stereotypical traits related to communal vs. agentic orientation

10. Gawronski et al. (2003) Measured associative strength with IAT Stimuli are male vs. female names and career- related (economy, salary) vs. household-related (children, kitchen) nouns Stereotype-consistent mapping –Male/Career is one key, Female/Household is other Stereotype-inconsistent mapping –Male/Household is one key, Female/Career is other IAT score = mean latency for inconsistent – mean latency for consistent –Higher score, stronger stereotypic associations –M = 127; Range = -208 to 580

11. Gawronski et al. (2003) Mean Communal Orientation of Target Note. Higher values reflect more communal (and less agentic) ratings

12. Gawronski et al. (2003) “Who Said What?” Used Taylor, Fiske et al. (1978) paradigm –Watch members of 2 different categories, e.g., men and women, engaged in group discussion –Surprise memory test: “who said this?” –More confusion errors within category than between categories Watch 4 men & 4 women discuss gender roles; they make statements both consistent and inconsistent with traditional gender stereotypes –Memory test: Was ____ said? Who said it? Apply Klauer & Wegener (1998) modeling –Major concern is parameter “a” of model: guessing the speaker’s category when statement, but neither speaker nor category, is remembered

13. Klauer & Wegener (1998) Multinomial Model of “Who said what?” Paradigm

14. Gawronski et al. (2003) Category guessing as function of statement’s stereotype consistency and perceiver’s stereotype strength Note. Higher numbers reflect assigning statement to a speaker’s category in a stereotype-consistent manner.

15. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Stereotype Functionality Stereotype activation is functional in sense that it increases processing efficiency –Experiment 1: detecting degraded stereotypic info –Experiment 2: locating stereotypic info in complex stimulus array Also functional in sense that it preserves processing resources –Experiment 3: enhancing performance on a concurrent mental task

16. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Exp. 1: Detecting Degraded Info List thoughts about either a typical soccer hooligan or a child abuser Target words degraded by random dot pattern mask of 45% density, decremented by 5% until word could be identified Word type varied –Stereotypic of soccer hooligan e.g., boastful, prejudiced, rude –Stereotypic of child abuser e.g., nervous, sly, perverse –Filler

17. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Exp. 1: Detecting Degraded Info Mean Presentations Required to Recognize Target Words

18. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Exp. 2: Locating Stereotypic Info List thoughts about either a typical soccer hooligan or a child abuser Target words embedded in 15 x 15 letter matrix 5 minutes to find as many words as possible Word type varied –Stereotypic of soccer hooligan –Stereotypic of child abuser

19. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Exp. 2: Locating Stereotypic Info Mean Number of Words Located

20. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Exp. 3: Preserving Resources List thoughts about a typical child abuser (stereotype present condition) or about shops being open on Sundays (stereotype absent condition) Dual task performance –Memorize words appearing on screen for later recall test 15 are items of fruit 15 are traits, 10 of which relate to child abusers –Listen to tape describing geography and economy of Indonesia for later multiple choice test

21. Macrae, Stangor, & Milne (1994) Exp. 3: Preserving Resources Task Performance Stereotype PresentAbsent Proportion Traits Recalled.33.17 Proportion Fruits Recalled.46.43 Multiple-choice test (out of 20) 9.336.33

22. Costs of Stereotype Use Stereotypes are efficient, but at some cost Sherman & Bessenoff (1999) – Stereotypes as source-monitoring cues –Read list of friendly and unfriendly behaviors under instructions to memorize (List 1) –Read 2 nd list of friendly and unfriendly behaviors, all ostensibly performed by Bob, who is either a skinhead or a priest (List 2) Friendly behaviors are stereotypical of priest Unfriendly are stereotypical of a skinhead –Return one day later Shown a list of behaviors that includes all the earlier ones (Lists 1 & 2) plus new ones (List 3) Asked whether each had been presented describing Bob (List 2) Do so while under cognitive load or not

23. Sherman & Bessenoff (1999) Average Proportion of Misattributions

26. References Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 70, 1142-1163. Gawronski, B., Ehrenberg, K., Banse, R., Zukova, J., & Klauer, K. C. (2003). It's in the mind of the beholder: The impact of stereotypic associations on category-based and individuating impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 16-30. Klauer, K. C., & Wegener, I. (1998). Unraveling social categorization in the "Who said what?" paradigm. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 75, 1155-1178. Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy- saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 66, 37-47. Macrae, C. N., Stangor, C., & Milne, A. B. (1994). Activating social stereotypes: A functional analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 370-389. Macrae, C. N., Mitchell, J. P., & Pendry, L. F. (2002). What's in a forename? Cue familiarity and stereotypical thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 186-193. Sherman, J. W., & Bessenoff, G. R. (1999). Stereotypes as source-monitoring cues: On the interaction between episodic and semantic memory. Psychological Science, 10, 106-110.