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

Private Public

Proportion of Errors

Black face

White faceRace X Target X Context p < .01

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