Research Has Demonstrated That Prejudice Can Have Positive Ramifications.

• plos.org
• create account
• sign in

• Loading metrics

Open up Access

Peer-reviewed

Research Article

Tolerance by Surprise: Testify for a Generalized Reduction in Prejudice and Increased Egalitarianism through Novel Category Combination

• Richard J. Crisp

Tolerance by Surprise: Evidence for a Generalized Reduction in Prejudice and Increased Egalitarianism through Novel Category Combination

• Milica Vasiljevic,
• Richard J. Crisp

10

• Published: March half-dozen, 2013
• https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057106

Figures

Abstract

Prejudices towards dissimilar groups are interrelated, but research has yet to detect a fashion to promote tolerance towards multiple outgroups. Nosotros devise, develop and implement a new cerebral intervention for achieving generalized tolerance based on scientific studies of social categorization. In five laboratory experiments and one field written report the intervention led to a reduction of prejudice towards multiple outgroups (elderly, disabled, asylum seekers, HIV patients, gay men), and fostered generalized tolerance and egalitarian beliefs. Importantly, these furnishings persisted outside the laboratory in a context marked by a history of trigger-happy ethnic conflict, increasing trust and reconciliatory tendencies towards multiple ethnic groups in the Former Yugoslav Democracy of Macedonia. We discuss the implications of these findings for intervention strategies focused on reducing conflict and promoting peaceful intergroup relations.

Citation: Vasiljevic M, Crisp RJ (2013) Tolerance by Surprise: Evidence for a Generalized Reduction in Prejudice and Increased Egalitarianism through Novel Category Combination. PLoS ONE 8(three): e57106. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0057106

Editor: Alessio Avenanti, University of Bologna, Italy

Received: June 28, 2012; Accepted: January 21, 2013; Published: March 6, 2013

Copyright: © 2013 Vasiljevic, Crisp. This is an open-access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Eatables Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original writer and source are credited.

Funding: The authors take no support or funding to report.

Competing interests: The authors have declared that no competing interests exist.

Introduction

The spectre of prejudice tin can quickly opposite the harmony of intergroup relations, and escalate into full-scale conflict, state of war and genocide. The Oxford English Dictionary (2011) defines prejudice as: "a preconceived opinion that is non based on reason or actual feel". In this commodity we devise, develop, and test a new approach to reducing prejudice that targets this unreasoning, heuristic basis for prejudice. Social cognitive research has shown that the roots of prejudice are cached deep in a fundamental bias in the way people process data. The intervention we propose does not attempt to modify the content of existing stereotypes, it changes the way in which people think near outgroups. Nosotros argue that this 'core noesis' approach to reducing prejudice has great potential because it addresses one of the biggest challenges facing gimmicky research on prejudice-reduction: How to promote generalized tolerance towards multiple groups; that is, egalitarianism in intergroup attitudes.

Achieving Generalized Tolerance

For decades, social scientists accept been concerned with the question how to reduce prejudice between social groups. Much progress has been fabricated, but the field faces an important challenge: Techniques that reduce prejudice towards one group practice not readily transfer to other outgroups, or in other words, promote generalized tolerance. Consider inquiry arising from Allport's [ane] contact hypothesis: The prejudice-reducing effects of contact may exist beneficial to the target outgroup (eastward.g., immigrants), just do non routinely generalize to other outgroups (e.k., the disabled). Although at that place is some contempo show for so-called secondary transfer effects, this transfer has been limited to groups that share the aforementioned superordinate category (e.g., immigrants and political refugees) [2]. Our aim was to develop a new intervention designed specifically to foster generalized tolerance. In so doing, we hope to provide a new blazon of cognitive intervention to fill the gap between existing contact [iii], [4], and multicultural [5], [6], [vii], [viii], perspectives on prejudice reduction. Our approach is rooted in scientific enquiry on the categorical basis of person perception, so this is where our treatise begins.

Multiple Social Categorization

Categorizing people into unlike groups, "united states" and "them", has been the basis of intractable conflict beyond the earth. The Troubles between the Catholics and the Protestants in Northern Ireland, the long drawn Israeli-Palestinian conflict in the Middle East, and the ethnic cleansing between the Croats, Serbs, and Bosnian Muslims on the territory of the Onetime Yugoslavia are merely a few examples. Research on multiple social categorization has explored what happens when instead of this elementary "us" vs. "them" criterion, people are compelled to think in ways that emphasize multiple affiliations [ix], [10]. Recent research on multiple categorization has shown that encouraging people to call back of counter-stereotypic categorizations is specially effective at reducing prejudice [11], [12]. Counter-stereotypic categorization describes when a person does non fit in to existing categorical expectancies (east.g., a gay priest, a male person midwife). Consistent with underlying social cognitive theory [xiii], when a person is described past mutually (stereotypically) inconsistent categories, perceivers cognitively 'shift gear' to focus on individuating characteristics as a way of resolving the inconsistency [fourteen], [15]. Our contention is that this cognitive switching from heuristic to individuated thinking does not cease with the target at manus, simply has the potential to be a much more powerful approach to prejudice-reduction than previously thought. The hypothesized extended benefits of this heuristic switching, under counter-stereotypic conditions, are derived from research on the cognitive characteristics of mindsets.

Mindsets and Intergroup Conflict

Mindsets are content-free processing orientations that are often linked to goals. For case, individuals tin can be motivated to integrate or differentiate data, leading to assimilation and contrast furnishings respectively [16]. Mindsets are besides linked to unlike stages of goal-pursuit [17], [18], [nineteen], and have important self-regulatory functions [twenty]. Mindsets bear upon judgments independently of the context in which they were elicited, and it is precisely for this reason that methods that tackle people'south core cognitions may be more successful at reducing prejudice in real contexts of conflict. One notable instance is recent research carried out in the context of the Israeli-Palestinian conflict by Halperin and colleagues [21] which aimed to change people'southward beliefs virtually outgroup malleability. In a cross-sectional field report of Israeli Jews they start showed that believing groups were malleable led to more positive attitudes, which in turn led to a greater willingness to compromise with the Palestinians. Across three farther experiments Halperin and colleagues showed that inducing individuals with beliefs near the malleable versus fixed nature of groups encouraged more positive attitudes towards the outgroup, which so led to greater willingness to compromise for peace. Notably, these results emerged amongst diverse samples (i.e., Israeli Jews, Palestinian citizens of Israel, and Palestinians in the West Depository financial institution) attesting to the convergent validity of this technique to reduce prejudice via modifying people'southward beliefs. That the intervention did non mention specific adversary groups during the induction stage, speaks to the viability of developing interventions that tackle people'due south core knowledge (i.due east., the mindset they prefer when thinking nearly outgroups) rather than the content of their specific prejudices.

Speaking to the potential mechanisms through which mindsets may affect social perception, Sassenberg and Moskowitz [22] found that priming individuals with a artistic mindset tin inhibit the automated activation of stereotypes at an implicit level. In their studies, participants who were primed to prefer a creative mindset showed lowered automatic activation of stereotypes associated with African Americans when compared to participants who were primed to adopt a thoughtful mindset (Written report 1), and also showed decreased activation of stereotypes related to neutral non-social stimuli (Written report 2). These findings illustrate that mindsets can promote changes to individuals' cadre cognition when confronted with information on outgroup members.

A Heuristic-Switching Mindset

We fence that the process of individuation, outlined by Fiske and Neuberg'due south [thirteen] continuum model, and evident under counter-stereotypic weather, may be much more powerful than previously thought. If conceptualized, and harnessed, as a mindset manipulation, we argue that counter-stereotypes can elicit a heuristic-switching mindset, which will result in a temporary, cognitive shift away from heuristic thinking [23]. Such a mindset may exist primal to achieving generalized tolerance because adopting such a mindset will promote the temporary tendency to think of all groups not in heuristic, stereotypic terms, but every bit individuals. Specifically, we hypothesize that being compelled to call up counter-stereotypically nearly others should induce a thinking mode characterized by the trend to carelessness established routines (i.eastward., stereotyping), appoint in generative thought, and consider individuating attributes, regardless of the specific target group at hand.

Our predictions derive from the Categorization-Processing-Adaptation-Generalization model (CPAG) [23], which proposes that experiencing diversity that confronts existing stereotypes promotes a shift from heuristic modes of thinking, thereby lessening people'southward reliance on stereotypes in guiding evaluations of groups. According to the CPAG model such a heuristic-switching mindset will only ensue if people are motivated to engage with the stereotype-disconfirming information, and have the cognitive resources to resolve the inconsistency.

The Present Research

I aim of the present investigation was to test the notion, derived from the CPAG model, that experiencing social diversity that challenges people's preconceptions can promote generalized tolerance. In its focus on promoting cognitive flexibility this proposition links with Sassenberg and Moskowitz'southward [22] earlier work; all the same, it goes much farther to specify uniquely how cognitively flexible responding can (a) be manifested in increased tolerance evidenced across multiple outgroups and (b) can exist encouraged through the feel of counter-stereotypic category combination. As such, our model provides a manner of linking research on the cognitive underpinnings of tolerance to research on social categorization and social diversity, with corresponding implications for multicultural policy and practice.

An important goal of the nowadays inquiry was also to examine, for the starting time time, the consequences of resolving inconsistencies for a generalized reduction in prejudice and increased egalitarianism. This is of import for at least 2 reasons. Beginning, previous work on cognitive flexibility mindsets did neither examine social judgments (i.due east., the application of stereotypes), nor the wider implications for promoting tolerance and egalitarian attitudes. Secondly, and perhaps well-nigh importantly, at the nowadays at that place are no interventions to tackle prejudicial perceptions towards multiple outgroups that do not share the aforementioned superordinate category. This represents a significant gap in our knowledge of prejudice reduction, which the present research seeks to fill up.

We devised a task that asked participants to generate either v counter-stereotypic, or v stereotypic, social category combinations (meet Supporting Material S1 for a re-create of the cognitive task), come across also [24]. Participants were free to generate whatever social category combinations they could think of. Examples of counter-stereotypic combinations generated by participants include: overweight model, rich pupil, female firefighter, or male midwife. Generation of stereotypic combinations was the appropriate control considering it constituted a task of equivalent load while representing the default mode of stereotypic person perception [13], [25], [26], [27]. Nosotros therefore hypothesized that generating v counter-stereotypic category combinations would elicit greater cognitive flexibility and engender generalized tolerance toward a range of outgroups. To so establish whether the benefits of a counter-stereotypic mindset extend beyond the laboratory, nosotros as well conducted a field experiment in a context marked by a history of ethnic conflict. All six experiments were conducted in accordance with APA standards for the upstanding treatment of human participants, and gained the prior approval past the Ideals Commission of the School of Psychology at the University of Kent. Informed written consent was obtained from all participants involved in these experiments. The half dozen experiments we conducted are reported below.

Experiments 1, 2, and 3: Cerebral Foundations

The first three experiments aimed to develop the new procedure and test the underlying assumptions of our theoretical model. Specifically, Experiment one tested whether generating surprising category combinations activated generative thought and a cognitive flexibility mindset as evidenced by a lowered need for cognitive closure [28]. The need for cognitive closure reflects an private'due south preference for a concrete solution as opposed to enduring uncertainty and ambiguity. Need for closure is an important concept for the nowadays purposes because individuals with a low need for closure are more inclined to deliberate and seek out novel information [29], focus more on individuating data as opposed to categorical data [30], and rely less on immediate impressions and stereotypic noesis [31], [32].

Experiment 2 probed the consequences of this mindset for the inhibition of stereotypic (i.due east., dominant) associations using the Stroop image [33]. Performance on the Stroop test reflects multiple underlying capacities, but an important component is the ability to inhibit the processing of semantic content. The chore also requires individuals to adjust to different task demands. Thus, the Stroop task was our preferred choice to provide an index of people'southward chapters to exhibit cerebral control and to reply to the changing demands of their environment.

Experiment iii employed a measure of lateral thinking [34] to confirm that a counter-stereotypic mindset encourages flexible, divergent thinking. Lateral thinking is the bent to use an indirect and inventive approach when faced with the task of solving bug. Thus, lateral thinking involves observing the problem at hand from multiple, novel perspectives, discarding traditional modes of thinking. Different Experiments 1 and ii, Experiment three besides employed a baseline condition in which participants did not generate whatsoever social category combinations.

Method

Participants and design.

In Experiment 1, 50 British undergraduates (22 females, M_age = 20.96), in Experiment ii, sixty-one British undergraduates (47 females, M_age  = eighteen.97), and in Experiment iii, l-four British undergraduates (43 females, Chiliad_age  = twenty.53) were randomly assigned to a counter-stereotypic or stereotypic priming condition. In Experiment 3, we added a second control condition in which participants did not generate any category combinations. Unless stated otherwise, course credits were offered in return for participation in all experiments.

Process and materials.

Upon arrival participants were asked to write downwardly 5 counter-stereotypic, or v stereotypic social category combinations. In Experiment 3, a third group of participants did not complete this step. In all experiments, manipulation checks confirmed that participants primed with counter-stereotypicality rated the category combinations they generated as more surprising and less similar than the participants primed with stereotypicality (all psouth<.01). In Experiment 1, participants then completed the Demand for Cognitive Closure – Lexical scale (NFCC-L) [28]. It required participants to choose one of two possible words to complete a sentence, i.e., "She preferred to travel to [familiar, unfamiliar] places" (coded: 0-ambiguous, one-concrete) [α = .69, Thousand = .50, SD = .18]. In Experiment ii, participants completed a standard computerized Stroop task after the priming job [33]. In Experiment 3, participants were asked to solve ten puzzles that required lateral thinking (e.g., Question: "A police officer saw a truck driver conspicuously going the wrong style down a 1-way street, but did not try to stop him. Why not?"; Answer: Because the truck driver was walking). Answers were scored for accurateness on a dichotomous calibration (0 =incorrect, i =correct). A blended score was derived by summing up all right responses whilst taking into account participants' prior familiarity with the puzzles.

Results and Give-and-take

In Experiment i, an independent samples t-test confirmed that participants primed with a counter-stereotypic mindset displayed a lower need for cognitive closure than those primed with stereotypicality, t(48) = two.05, p = .046, d = 0.59 (Ms = .46 vs..56). These results provide a first indication that priming a counter-stereotypic mindset is conducive to generative idea and a move away from heuristic forms of thinking - a ground for greater cognitive flexibility [35]. Because a low need for cognitive closure is associated with lowered outgroup derogation [36], these findings besides hint at the possibility that priming a counter-stereotypic mindset may lead to decreases in prejudice.

Standard pre-assay handling of response times in the Stroop task in Experiment 2 were performed, resulting in the removal of four outliers with response times exceeding two and a half standard deviations the sample average. An contained samples t-examination and then showed that generating counter-stereotypic category combinations reduced Stroop interference (Ms = 69 ms vs. 100 ms), t(55) = ane.89, p = .06, d = 0.51. This further indicates a switch away from heuristic thinking under counter-stereotypic conditions, and the enhanced tendency to engage executive functions such equally inhibition of ascendant associations (i.eastward., stereotypes).

In Experiment 3, a one-way ANOVA demonstrated that there were significant differences betwixt the 3 experimental conditions, F(2, 53) = 4.50, p = .016, η^two = 0.15. Tukey post-hoc comparisons revealed that participants primed with counter-stereotypicality (Thousand = 3.50) solved significantly more lateral thinking puzzles compared to participants primed with stereotypicality (G = 2.29), p = .038; and also compared to participants who did not generate whatsoever category combination prior to the puzzles (G = 2.26), p = .027. Comparisons betwixt the baseline and stereotypic status were not pregnant, p = .998. These results demonstrate that thinking of counter-stereotypic exemplars can pb to a more indirect and creative approach when solving problems. Moreover, this study further supports the contention that it is priming counter-stereotypic thinking, not stereotypic thinking, that leads to changes in peoples' core cerebral style.

Experiment four: Reducing Prejudice and Promoting Tolerance

The master aim of Experiment iv was to probe the consequences of a counter-stereotypic mindset for promoting tolerance and reducing prejudice towards multiple outgroups [37]. To determine the scope of the intervention for promoting tolerance, we assessed individuals' commitment to democratic norms [38]. In addition, with the view to maximizing the impact of the priming procedure, nosotros varied the number of category combinations participants were required to generate. On the one manus, generating more surprising category combinations allows for greater do and longer exposure to counter-stereotypic thought, and this would argue for stronger effects with an increased number of category combinations. On the other paw, generating more than category combinations implies greater effort, which could undermine the benefits of the priming task through cognitive depletion, or by reducing individuals' confidence in their thought processes [39]. In light of these conflicting predictions, we asked participants to generate either five (easy) or ten (hard) category combinations.

Method

Participants and pattern.

Eighty-three British undergraduates (53 females, M_{historic period} =23.49) were randomly assigned to the weather condition of a 2 (combination type: counter-stereotypic vs. stereotypic)×two (number of combinations: 5 vs. ten) factorial design.

Procedure and materials.

Afterward having generated five (ten) counter-stereotypic (stereotypic) category combinations, participants rated their attitudes towards different social outgroups: elderly, disabled, HIV patients, aviary seekers, and gay men, using the following bipolar adjective pairs separated by a ix-betoken calibration: warm-cold, negative-positive, friendly-hostile, suspicious-trusting, respect-contempt, adoration-disgust (Full general Evaluation Scale) [37]. At the end, participants indicated their Commitment to Democratic Norms [38] (due east.m., "Gratis speech should be provided for all no affair what their views might be") using a vii-point calibration (i =strongly disagree; 7 = strongly agree) [α = .71, Grand = 5.73, SD = .86].

Results and Give-and-take

A 2 (combination type: counter-stereotypic vs. stereotypic)×2 (number of combinations: 5 vs. ten) MANOVA was computed on the evaluation ratings for the five minority outgroups subsequently reverse coding of negative items. The analysis yielded a significant interaction between combination type and number of combinations, F(five, 74) = ii.34, p = .050, η² = 0.05. Simple effects confirmed that, in the five combinations status, thinking counter-stereotypically led to more favorable attitudes towards all the outgroups (Ms = 6.42 vs. 5.79), F(five, 74) = ii.37, p = .047, d = 0.34. In other words, thinking counter-stereotypically promoted generalized tolerance. No such event was found in the ten combinations condition (Ms = 6.16 vs. 6.36), F<1. Turning back to the omnibus test, no other effects emerged, Fs<1.six (meet Table 1). A repeated measures ANOVA with combination type and number of combinations as between-subjects factors revealed that the effects of the surprising categories priming did not differ between the 5 target groups, F(4, 304) = 1.39, p = .235, ε =.ninety.

A 2 (combination type: counter-stereotypic vs. stereotypic)×ii (number of combinations: 5 vs. ten) ANOVA was conducted on Delivery to Autonomous Norms. The analysis yielded a significant interaction, F(1, 77) = four.31, p = .041, η² = 0.05. Analyses of simple effects revealed that after generating five counter-stereotypic category combinations participants were more committed to democratic norms than after generating v stereotypic category combinations (Ms = 6.06 vs. 5.44), F(i, 77) = 5.77, p = .019, d = 0.54. No such effect was found when participants generated 10 combinations, (Ms = v.63 vs. 5.79), F<1. No other significant furnishings emerged.

As predicted the results showed that priming participants with counter-stereotypic thinking led to more positive attitudes towards a various range of outgroups and, notably, increased individuals' commitment to democratic norms. No such outcome was found when participants generated x category combinations. This suggests that the benefit of counter-stereotypic over stereotypic idea diminishes equally individuals are compelled to generate a big number of category combinations. Thus, although with the current sample size generating a smaller number of counter-stereotypic exemplars did not yield a meaning difference from generating many counter-stereotypic exemplars (p =.172), the overall pattern of results supports the notion that generating a lower versus higher number of combinations may be the optimal strategy to achieve a generalized reduction in prejudice.

Experiment 5: Egalitarianism through Flexible Idea

Experiments one–3 demonstrated that counter-stereotypic thinking improves lateral thinking, lowers the need for cognitive closure and helps overcome dominant associations. Experiment four provided the first evidence that these characteristics of the hypothesized mindset event in generalized tolerance across multiple outgroups. The aim of Experiment five was to demonstrate more than directly that generating counter-stereotypic category combinations encourages individuals to embrace diversity and to practise away with rigid preconceptions. To this cease, we examined the moderating function of Personal Need for Structure (PNS) [xl]. If generating counter-stereotypic category combinations increases tolerance by compelling perceivers to push stereotypic thinking aside, then individuals with a low need for construction should answer best to the experimental procedure and exhibit a larger increase in tolerance than individuals with a high demand for structure, who may be reluctant to do away with stereotypic preconceptions. To test these predictions, nosotros focused on some other facet of tolerance: endorsement of egalitarian values. For this purpose nosotros utilized Katz and Hass'southward [41] Humanitarianism-Egalitarianism scale, which measures peoples' endorsement of equality of opportunity, social justice, and business for the well-being of other individuals regardless of their corresponding grouping membership. As in the previous experiment, we as well asked participants to generate either five or ten category combinations.

Method

Participants and pattern.

Fourscore British undergraduates (63 females, 1000_age =20.85) participated in the experiment. The design was identical to Experiment four.

Procedure and materials.

Upon arrival participants completed the Personal Need for Structure scale (PNS) [40] (due east.m., "I don't like situations that are uncertain"; 1 =strongly disagree to 6 =strongly concord; α = .78, M = 3.71, SD = .61) prior to generating five (ten) counter-stereotypic (stereotypic) category combinations. Adjacent, participants completed the Humanitarian-Egalitarian scale [41] (α = .87, M = 5.49, SD = .82), which measured participants' egalitarian value orientations (due east.g., "Ane should be kind to all people") [1 =strongly disagree, 7 =strongly concur].

Results and Discussion

Given the findings from Experiment 4, nosotros followed a hypothesis-driven arroyo [42], [43], and employed a planned contrast comparing the 5 counter-stereotypic category combinations condition (coded 1) against the other three cells of the blueprint (coded 0). Nosotros regressed participants' responses to the Humanitarian-Egalitarian scale on the centred PNS scores, the contrast coding, and the interaction of the two predictor variables [44]. The analysis revealed a marginally significant main effect of the status contrast, β = .19, p = .080, qualified by a significant interaction with PNS, β = –.28, p = .036. The lower individuals' need for personal structure, the more participants benefited from generating five counter-stereotypic category combinations in terms of an increase in their egalitarian values. Equally can exist seen in Figure i, thinking about 5 counter-stereotypic category combinations changed the egalitarian attitudes of individuals with a low (−1SD: M _{Due south} = half dozen.11 vs. 5.34), β = .41, p = .006, only not with a high demand for personal structure, (+1SD: M _S = 5.39 vs. v.44), β = –.02, p = .878.

Figure one. Participants' levels of generalized Humanitarianism-Egalitarianism, plotted as a function of participants' personal need for construction (PNS) and type of priming (high = one SD higher up the mean, low = i SD below the hateful) [Experiment 5].

Lower scores betoken lower egalitarianism.

https://doi.org/x.1371/journal.pone.0057106.g001

We also conducted an assay using the General Linear Model (GLM), where we added combination type and number of combinations (both categorical) equally well every bit PNS (continuous) as predictors of Humanitarianism. Replicating Experiment 4, the results revealed an interaction between combination type and number of combinations, F(1, 72) = iv.79, p = .032, η² = 0.06, which upon closer examination was driven past a significant divergence between stereotypic and counter-stereotypic pairings that simply emerged for five category combinations, F(one, 36) = 6.10, p = .018, ηⁱⁱ = 0.13, simply did not emerge for ten category combinations, F<i. However, this pattern likewise differed depending on participants' level of PNS. For those scoring low on PNS (−1 SD), generating five counter-stereotypic category combinations resulted in more than egalitarian attitudes than generating 5 stereotypic category combinations, F(ane, 36) = viii.37, p = .006, η² = 0.17. In dissimilarity, participants scoring high on PNS (+1 SD) were unaffected, F<ane. This pattern did not emerge for 10 category combinations, where participants' level of PNS had no effects (Fdue south<i). The overall outcome was a marginally pregnant three-mode interaction betwixt combination type, number of combinations, and PNS, F(one, 72) = 3.32, p = .072, η^two = 0.04.

These findings provide farther evidence that thinking well-nigh a few surprising, counter-stereotypic social category combinations fosters a cognitive flexibility mindset that challenges established noesis structures. Furthermore, these results prove that thinking about counter-stereotypic exemplars can lead to greater endorsement of egalitarian values. Irresolute people's value orientations is an of import feat in the quest for generalized reduction of prejudice and greater tolerance, since values are higher order constructs that are more hard to alter and are predictive of more than specific attitudes [i], [41], [45], [46].

Experiment 6: Field Examination

The aim of our final study was to test the viability of counter-stereotypic priming in the field where existent conflict defines intergroup relations. The present experiment was conducted in the Former Yugoslav Republic of Macedonia and focused on attitudes towards indigenous groups that shared a history of conflict. The experiment utilized five category combinations merely, which had proved most successful in the laboratory. In this study we aimed to replicate the generalized reduction of prejudice found in Experiments iv and 5, but this time with ethnic outgroups [37]. Furthermore, we aimed to extend the findings on generalized reduction of prejudice by testing whether a counter-stereotypic mindset can also lead to greater trust and willingness to reconcile with the outgroup [47].

Method

Participants and pattern.

80-4 volunteering ethnic Macedonians (61 female person, M_age =23.92) were randomly allocated to 1 of two experimental conditions (combination blazon: counter-stereotypic vs. stereotypic).

Process and materials.

Participants were recruited from workplaces and universities in the capital of Macedonia, Skopje. Upon consenting to take role, participants were asked to generate either five counter-stereotypic, or five stereotypic category combinations. Participants then rated their attitudes toward iv dissimilar ethnic outgroups: Gypsies, Albanians, Greeks, and Serbs, past using the following bipolar adjective pairs separated by a vii-point scale: warm-cold, negative-positive, friendly-hostile, suspicious-trusting, respect-contempt, admiration-disgust (General Evaluation Scale) [37]. Participants likewise rated their generalized trust towards the indigenous groups [47] (eastward.1000., "Members of the ethnic minorities volition exploit me if I trust them" (R); 1 =strongly disagree to 5 =strongly hold) [α = .67, One thousand = 2.62, SD = .88].

Results and Discussion

A MANOVA on attitudes towards the four outgroups yielded a pregnant main event, F(four, 78) = six.lx, p<.001, η² = 0.09. Participants who generated counter-stereotypic category combinations displayed more positive attitudes towards the four ethnic outgroups than participants who generated stereotypic category combinations, (Ms = iv.05 vs. 3.72) [come across Table 2]. A repeated measures ANOVA with combination type equally a between-subjects factor confirmed that the effects of the counter-stereotypic priming did not differ between the four target groups, F(three, 243) = 1.32, p = .268, ε =.921.

An Independent Samples t-test revealed that thinking about surprising category combinations increased trust towards the 4 indigenous outgroups, t(82) = −3.61, p = .001, d = 0.fourscore (Ms = 2.93 vs. 2.28). These findings demonstrate that a cerebral flexibility mindset induced past generating counter-stereotypic category combinations tin can succeed in reducing prejudice and fostering trust outside the laboratory in a context marked by a history of ethnic conflict.

General Give-and-take

Philosophers, sociologists, politicians and policy-makers have long struggled with the problem of prejudice, with the ultimate aim of eradicating prejudice from human societies [48], [49], [50], [51], [52]. The nowadays research adds a new psychological contribution to these efforts. We utilized principles of multiple categorization to develop a new mindset consecration approach to reducing prejudice and promoting more positive intergroup relations. Across vi experiments, priming a counter-stereotypic mindset increased cognitive flexibility, lowering the need for cognitive closure (Experiment one), increasing the inhibition of dominant responses (Experiment two), and heightening lateral thinking (Experiment 3). Most importantly, priming counter-stereotypic thinking lowered prejudice toward a multitude of outgroups (Experiments 4 and 6), increased commitment to democratic norms (Experiment 4), fostered egalitarian values (Experiment v), and enhanced trust towards outgroups in a setting marked by a history of trigger-happy ethnic conflict (Experiment six).

These findings underscore the potential of multiple categorization as a tool to lower prejudice, and demonstrate for the first fourth dimension that multiple categorization based on surprising category combinations can induce a mindset capable of lowering generalized prejudice and increasing tolerance towards multiple outgroups. Counter-stereotypic thinking reduced Stroop interference, pointing towards increased cognitive control and the inhibition of automatic associations. Furthermore, priming counter-stereotypic thinking reduced individuals' need for cognitive closure and improved their performance on lateral thinking tasks, suggesting an epistemic motivation to process data deeper, and in novel ways [53].

A remarkable finding is that the counter-stereotypic intervention elicited heightened trust towards multiple ethnic outgroups in a society marked by contempo, visceral inter-ethnic hostilities. Intergroup trust is acknowledged to be a fundamental deciding cistron whether 2 warring groups engage in reconciliation [54]. Even so, thus far inquiry in this area has been very scant, mainly arising from the difficulties of studying real conflicted groups. From the few studies that have tested trust in intergroup disharmonize we know that contact predicts trust positively, thus leading researchers to propose that conflicted groups should be encouraged to come into contact more often [55]. Notwithstanding, one often overlooked obstacle to establishing positive contact betwixt conflicted groups is the segregated nature of societies in conflict. Contact cannot be forced, and even when it is established it requires time for the positive benefits to occur. Therefore, there is a need for simple interventions that would brand people more willing to reconcile with opponents. The present research provides evidence for increased generalized trust subsequently generating 5 counter-stereotypic category combinations. Namely, thinking nearly the variety that defines modernistic societies leads to increases in trust which in turn should pb to greater willingness to engage in positive relations. Thinking nigh multiple categories could provide a new, simple intervention technique to lay the grounds for increased trust and reconciliation amongst alien parties.

The fact that the novel task we used does non include a specific outgroup target may explain why it had more success than previous interventions at promoting generalized tolerance. The counter-stereotypic category combinations generated differed widely between participants, and more importantly these combinations differed from the multiple target outgroups that were used equally a measure of generalized prejudice reduction. These characteristics of the novel job may explain the generalizability result found in our studies. The present research has therefore shown that it is possible to affect variables that are resistant to change such as values, personal behavior, and attitudes by changing people's cognitive styles.

One question that arises is how the present findings can exist reconciled with past research that has shown that counter-stereotypic exemplars are often assigned to a new category of unrepresentative group members? This and so-chosen subtyping process enables people to maintain their pre-existing stereotypical behavior [56], [57], [58]. Closer inspection reveals important differences betwixt contexts that trigger subtyping and the present intervention based on counter-stereotypic category combinations. In particular, subtyping ensues in the presence of farther, frequently neutral information (e.yard., an introverted lawyer working in a minor or big business firm), simply it tends not to occur when only category information is available (e.m., an introverted lawyer) [59]. This suggests that the absence of whatsoever boosted person information might in fact be a critical characteristic of the success of the nowadays mindset intervention. Furthermore, thinking of more one counter-stereotypic exemplar could likewise annul subtyping processes every bit categorical knowledge becomes increasingly difficult to reconcile with the counter-stereotypic exemplars. The fact that subtyping plagues interventions targeted at the content of people's stereotypes (i.due east., what people remember nearly others) underscores the need for interventions targeted at people's cadre cognition (i.e., how people think well-nigh others).

From a practical, practical signal of view the well-nigh valuable contribution of the present research is the finding that a relatively simple, brusque, and inexpensive task can foster tolerance and reduce prejudice. The simplicity of the job makes it appealing and manageable to implement past practitioners in real earth settings, where an ideal intervention should exist quick, concise, and easy to implement. With this in listen, it is encouraging that a cursory job appears to yield the most positive outcomes. The novel task can also exist used in highly segregated and antagonistic settings, thus avoiding the pitfalls that previous interventions take suffered from.

A fully-fledged intervention programme may begin with the novel job, and later when participants have adapted to resolving inconsistencies arising from the counter-stereotypic challenging diversity, practitioners may introduce a contact intervention whereby people from opposing groups are brought together under optimal conditions. In this case the novel job would brand people more than open-minded and flexible, thereby decreasing the associated feet and resistance that would impede the positive furnishings of contact, paving the way for some other more than specific intervention to work. For example, someone primed with a counter-stereotypic mindset may, as a result of enhanced cerebral flexibility, engage in more contact with their erstwhile enemy, or even join superordinate category teams with outgroupers. A cerebral flexibility mindset induction could thus be the first pace in a advisedly designed intervention programme.

Future Enquiry

One important attribute that futurity studies should test is the long-term touch of this job. Previous research on self-regulation of prejudice has shown that the motivation to avoid expressions of negative stereotypes can lead to the automatic suppression of stereotypes over time [sixty], [61], [62], [63]. This ability to self-regulate stereotypes becomes easier with practice, which led Crisp and Turner [23] to suggest that repeated engagement in resolving stereotypic inconsistencies should improve the ability to suppress existing stereotypes and engage in more generative systematic thought. Chiefly, as predicted by the CPAG model [23] the temporary shifts in cognitive flexibility that ensue after thinking of counter-stereotypic diversity should pb to chronic changes in people's cerebral style of thinking. Exploring the long-term implications of chronic exposure to diversity is an important artery for time to come enquiry. On a related note, it would also be interesting for hereafter research to explore whether request participants to generate non-social counter-stereotypic category combinations would produce dissimilar effects to the ones obtained with the social version of the task. Another, related question pertains to the age at which interventions based on cognitive mindsets would be maximally effective. Using the task as part of personal and social education in schools may pb to benefits for futurity intergroup relations.

Ane could suggest that the present findings are driven by an increment in prejudice after asking participants to generate stereotypic social category combinations. Generation of stereotypic combinations was called every bit the most appropriate control task, keeping all other factors constant autonomously from the primal variable of interest: stereotypicality of the generated combinations. What is more than, previous inquiry has shown that stereotypic exemplars are more than easily accessible and typically guide individuals' judgements and behavior, thus exemplifying the default thinking fashion [xiii], [xiv], [15], [25], [26], [27]. Furthermore, in Experiment 3 nosotros utilized a baseline condition in which participants did not generate whatsoever combinations prior to giving their answers on the dependent measures. The information in this experiment demonstrated that the furnishings on the dependent variable were driven by the counter-stereotypic status, whereas at that place were no significant differences between the participants who generated stereotypic social category combinations and those participants who were in the baseline condition. These results coupled with previous theoretical and empirical findings underscore the notion that counter-stereotypic thinking tin can be a catalyst for improved intergroup attitudes.

The present studies as well explored factors that strengthen or weaken the outcomes of the mindset consecration. The CPAG model predicts that merely those individuals who are motivated to engage in the inconsistency resolution process that arises when being faced with counter-stereotypically challenging multifariousness volition show increases in cognitive flexibility. Consistent with these conjectures, Experiment 5 showed that individuals who were high in personal need for construction did not demonstrate reductions in generalized prejudice after the job. Individuals with a high personal demand for construction detect it harder to do abroad with established categories and pre-conceptions, thus providing directly evidence for the importance of categorization processes in the findings described here. Other, related individual difference constructs such as the Demand for Cognition (NFC) [64], [65], [66], which describes an inclination for reflective thought, and Ingroup Identification, which denotes the degree to which individuals define or run across themselves every bit grouping members [67], may have like, moderating effects. In applied terms, these findings are important considering they highlight the necessity for further inquiry to develop tasks that succeed in inducing a counter-stereotypic mindset in people with a high personal need for structure.

Equally pointed out earlier in this paper, categorization is a useful tool which saves cognitive resources and time. However, the present research shows that categories may not be useful at all times, and in fact there may be discernible benefits for intergroup harmony if categories were sometimes not used at all. Therefore, it would be interesting to examine the evolutionary trajectory of categorization principles to determine the extent to which categorization into in- and outgroups is a rudimentary part from our evolutionary past, when instant categorization into different groups may accept engendered benefits for survival. Evolutionary theories posit that the surround sometimes changes faster than the ability of the organism to suit, and the upshot of this is that the organism finds itself mismatched to the environment. Such an effect has been postulated for rudimentary emotional responses, and may also apply to categorization processes [68]. The mismatch hypothesis has also implications for the social identification of individuals. Thus, even though identification with social groups brings a host of benefits, such as positive distinctiveness, the increasingly globalized and multicultural world we are living in may mean that intergroup differentiation is no longer a maximally viable method of perceiving the social surround.

Conclusions

Nosotros have demonstrated that a generalized reduction of prejudice can be accomplished by instigating a counter-stereotypic mindset. This piece of work offers a possible answer to the question that has eluded social psychologists for decades, namely how to foster tolerance and reduce prejudice towards multiple outgroups. These findings have important ramifications for future theorizing in the field of prejudice reduction. The fact that the novel job does not characteristic a particular outgroup may explain why, in contrast to previous interventions, we observed generalized tolerance. Furthermore, by irresolute people'due south cognitive styles the present research has shown that it is possible to affect variables that are resistant to change such as values, personal beliefs, and attitudes. The primal to prejudice reduction may therefore lie in changing peoples' way of thinking, rather than the content of their stereotypes.

Supporting Information

Acknowledgments

Nosotros would like to thank Mario Weick for his insightful comments and communication during the preparation of this manuscript. Nosotros are too grateful to Snežana and Dragiša Vasiljević for their assistance with dorsum-translating the materials into Macedonian and help with data collection in Macedonia.

Writer Contributions

Conceived and designed the experiments: MV RJC. Performed the experiments: MV. Analyzed the data: MV. Contributed reagents/materials/analysis tools: MV. Wrote the paper: MV RJC.

References

1. ane. Allport GW (1954) The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. ii. Harwood J, Paolini South, Joyce N, Rubin One thousand, Arroyo A (2011) Secondary transfer effects from imagined contact: Group similarity affects the generalization gradient. Br J Soc Psychol 50: 180–189.
   • View Commodity
   • Google Scholar
3. three. Crisp RJ, Turner RN (2009) Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through false social contact. Am Psychol 64: 231–240.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
4. 4. Hodson G, Choma BL, Costello One thousand (2009) Experiencing conflicting-nation: Effects of a simulation intervention on attitudes toward homosexuals. J Exp Soc Psychol 45: 974–978.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
5. v. Morrison KR, Plaut VC, Ybarra O (2010) Predicting whether multiculturalism positively or negatively influences White Americans' intergroup attitudes: The role of indigenous identification. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 36: 1648–1661.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
6. half-dozen. Plaut VC (2010) Diverseness science: Why and how deviation makes a difference. Psychological Enquiry 21: 77–99.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
7. 7. Rosenthal Fifty, Levy SR (2010) The colorblind, multicultural, and polycultural ideological approaches to improving intergroup attitudes and relations. Social Issues and Policy Review iv: 215–246.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
8. viii. Sanchez-Burks J, Nisbett R, Lee F, Ybarra O (2007) Intercultural training based on a theory of relational credo. Basic and Applied Social Psychology 29: 257–268.
   • View Article
   • Google Scholar
9. 9. Deschamps J-C, Doise W (1978) Crossed category memberships in intergroup relations. In Tajfel H, editor. Differentiation between social groups. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 141–158.
10. x. Vanbeselaere N (1991) The different effects of unproblematic and crossed categorizations: A result of the category differentiation procedure or of differential category salience? In Stroebe W, Hewstone M, editors. European review of social psychology. Chichester UK: Wiley, 247–278.
11. eleven. Hall NR, Crisp RJ (2005) Considering multiple criteria for social categorization can reduce intergroup bias. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31: 1435–1444.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
12. 12. Hutter RRC, Crisp RJ (2005) The composition of category conjunctions. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 31: 647–657.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
13. thirteen. Fiske ST, Neuberg SL (1990) A continuum model of impression formation from category based to individuating process: Influences of information and motivation on attending an interpretation. In Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Academic Press, 1–74.
14. 14. Hastie R, Schroeder C, Weber R (1990) Creating complex social conjunction categories from unproblematic categories. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Guild 28: 242–247.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
15. 15. Kunda Z, Miller DT, Claire T (1990) Combining social concepts: The role of causal reasoning. Cogn Sci xiv: 551–577.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
16. xvi. Stapel DA, Koomen W (2001) The bear on of interpretation versus comparison mindsets on cognition accessibility effects. J Exp Soc Psychol 37: 134–149.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
17. 17. Armor D, Taylor Due south (2003) The furnishings of mindset on behavior: self-regulation in deliberative and implementational frames of mind. Pers Soc Psychol Balderdash 29: 86–95.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
18. xviii. Gagne FM, Lydon JE (2001) Mind-fix and close relationships: When bias leads to (in)authentic predictions. J Pers Soc Psychol 81: 85–96.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
19. xix. Taylor SE, Gollwitzer PM (1995) Effects of mindset on positive illusions. J Pers Soc Psychol 69: 213–226.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
20. 20. Higgins ET (1998) Promotion and prevention: Regulatory focus as a motivational principle. In Zanna MP, editor. Advances in experimental social psychology. New York: Bookish Printing, 1–46.
21. 21. Halperin E, Russell GA, Trzesniewski HK, Gross JJ, Dweck SC (2011) Promoting the peace procedure past irresolute beliefs about group malleability. Scientific discipline 333: 1767–1769.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
22. 22. Sassenberg K, Moskowitz GB (2005) Don't stereotype, call back different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation past mindset priming. J Exp Soc Psychol 41: 506–514.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
23. 23. Crisp RJ, Turner RN (2011) Cognitive adaptation to the feel of social and cultural diversity. Psychol Bull 137: 242–266.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
24. 24. Well-baked RJ, Hall NR (2009) Reducing Implicit and Explicit Bias via Decategorization. ESRC Stop of Award Report (RES-000-22-2033).
25. 25. Brewer MB (1988) A dual process model of impression formation. In Wyer RS Jr, Srull TK, editors. Advances in social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates Inc, ane–36.
26. 26. Hamilton DL, Sherman JW (1994) Stereotypes. In Wyer RS Jr, Srull TK, editors. Handbook of social cognition. Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, i–68.
27. 27. Sherman JW, Frost LA (2000) On the encoding of stereotype-relevant information under cognitive load. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 26: 26–34.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
28. 28. Calogero RM (2008) Development and validation of an implicit lexical measure of need for cognitive closure: A motivated social knowledge approach. PhD thesis, Academy of Kent, Canterbury.
29. 29. Mayseless O, Kruglanski AW (1987) What makes you so sure? Effects of epistemic motivations on judgmental conviction. Organ Behav Hum Decis Process 39: 162–183.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
30. 30. Kruglanski AW, Mayseless O (1988) Contextual furnishings in hypothesis testing: The part of competing alternatives and epistemic motivations. Soc Cogn 6: 1–21.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
31. 31. Freund T, Kruglanski AW, Schpitzajzen A (1985) The freezing and unfreezing of impressional primacy: Effects of the need for structure and the fear of invalidity. Pers Soc Psychol Balderdash xi: 479–487.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
32. 32. Heaton A, Kruglanski AW (1991) Person perception by introverts and extraverts nether time pressure: Need for closure furnishings. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 17: 161–165.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
33. 33. Stroop JR (1935) Studies of interference in serial verbal reactions. Periodical of Experimental Psychology 12: 242–248.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
34. 34. de Bono Due east (1967) The use of lateral thinking. New York: Penguin Books.
35. 35. Kruglanski AW, Webster DM (1996) Motivated closing of the heed: "Seizing" and "freezing.". Psychol Rev 103: 263–283.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
36. 36. Shah JY, Kruglanski AW, Thompson EP (1998) Membership has its (epistemic) rewards: Need for closure effects on in-grouping bias. J Pers Soc Psychol 75: 383–393.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
37. 37. Wright SC, Aron A, McLaughlin-Volpe T, Ropp SA (1997) The extended contact effect: Cognition of cantankerous-grouping friendships and prejudice. J Pers Soc Psychol 73: 73–90.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
38. 38. Golebiowska EA (2001) Individual-Targeted Tolerance and Timing of Group Membership Disclosure. J Polit 63: 1017–1040.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
39. 39. Piffling RE, Briñol P, Tormala ZL (2002) Idea confidence as a determinant of persuasion: The self-validation hypothesis. J Pers Soc Psychol 82: 722–741.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
40. 40. Neuberg SL, Newsom JT (1993) Personal need for structure: Individual differences in the desire for elementary structure. J Pers Soc Psychol 65: 113–131.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
41. 41. Katz I, Hass RG (1988) Racial ambivalence and American value disharmonize: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. J Pers Soc Psychol 55: 893–905.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
42. 42. Judd CM, McClelland GH (1989) Data analysis: A model-comparison approach. San Diego, CA: Harcourt Caryatid Jovanovich.
43. 43. Rosenthal R, Rosnow RL, Rubin DB (2000) Contrasts and outcome sizes in behavioral research: A correlational approach. New York, NY: Cambridge University Printing.
44. 44. Aiken LS, West SG (1991) Multiple Regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
45. 45. Rokeach G (1973) The nature of human being values. New York: Gratuitous Press.
46. 46. Williams RM Jr (1979) Modify and stability in values and value systems: A sociological perspective. In Rokeach 1000, editor. Agreement human values. New York: Complimentary Press, 15–46.
47. 47. Tausch N, Tam T, Hewstone M, Kenworthy J, Cairns Due east (2007) Individual-level and group-level mediators of contact effects in Northern Republic of ireland: The moderating role of social identification. Br J Soc Psychol 46: 541–556.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
48. 48. LeVine RA, Campbell DT (1972) Ethnocentrism. New York: John Wiley.
49. 49. Sumner WG (1906) Folkways. Boston, MA: Ginn.
50. 50. Thomas WI (1904) The psychology of race-prejudice. The American Periodical of Sociology 11: 593–611.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
51. 51. Thomas WI (1907) The listen of adult female and the lower races. The American Journal of Folklore 12: 435–469.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
52. 52. Thomas WI (1912) Race psychology, standpoint and questionnaire. The American Journal of Sociology 17: 725–775.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
53. 53. De Dreu CKW, Koole S, Oldersma FL (1999) On the seizing and freezing of negotiator inferences: Need for cognitive closure moderates the utilise of heuristics in negotiation. Pers Soc Psychol Bull 25: 348–362.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
54. 54. Nadler A (2002) Post resolution processes: Instrumental and socio-emotional routes to reconciliation. In Salomon Chiliad, Nevo B, editors. Peace education: The concept, principles, and practices around the globe. Mahwah, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum, 127–142.
55. 55. Tam T, Hewstone M, Kenworthy JB, Cairns E (2009) Intergroup trust in Northern Republic of ireland. Pers Soc Psychol Balderdash 35: 45–59.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
56. 56. Park B, Wolsko C, Judd CM (2001) Measurement of subtyping in stereotype modify. J Exp Soc Psychol 37: 325–332.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
57. 57. Richards Z, Hewstone M (2001) Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Pers Soc Psychol Rev five: 52–73.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
58. 58. Weber R, Crocker J (1983) Cerebral processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs. J Pers Soc Psychol 45: 961–977.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
59. 59. Kunda Z, Oleson KC (1995) Maintaining stereotypes in the face up of disconfirmation: Amalgam grounds for subtyping deviants. J Pers Soc Psychol 68: 565–579.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
60. threescore. Devine PG, Monteith MJ (1999) Automaticity and control in stereotyping. In Chaiken S, Trope Y, editors. Dual process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford Press, 339–360.
61. 61. Monteith MJ (1993) Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. J Pers Soc Psychol 65: 469–485.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
62. 62. Monteith MJ, Sherman J, Devine PG (1998) Suppression as a stereotype control strategy. Pers Soc Psychol Rev ii: 63–82.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
63. 63. Monteith MJ, Spicer CV, Tooman G (1998) Consequences of stereotype suppression: Stereotypes on AND not on the rebound. J Exp Soc Psychol 34: 355–377.
    • View Commodity
    • Google Scholar
64. 64. Cohen AR (1957) Need for Cognition and Social club of Communication as determinants of Opinion Modify. In Hovland CI, editor. The Order of Presentation in Persuasion. New Oasis, CT: Yale University Press, 79–97.
65. 65. Cohen AR, Stotland E, Wolfe DM (1955) An Experimental Investigation of Need for Noesis. Periodical of Aberrant and Social Psychology 51: 291–294.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
66. 66. Cacioppo JT, Trivial RE (1982) The demand for cognition. J Pers Soc Psychol 42: 116–131.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar
67. 67. Turner JC, Hogg MA, Oakes PJ, Reicher SD, Wetherell MS (1987) Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory. Oxford: Basil Blackwell.
68. 68. Tooby J, Cosmides L (1990) The past explains the present. Emotional adaptations and the structure of ancestral environments. Ethology and Sociobiology 11: 375–424.
    • View Article
    • Google Scholar

dickersonwallecurese.blogspot.com

Source: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0057106

Share this post