2000, JPSP

1. 2000, JPSP

2. Study 2 • Does training reduce automatic stereotype activation? How long does the training effect last?

4. Design: 3 (exemplars) X 2 (IAT) X 2 (time delay) • Exemplar Task: • Admired White and disliked Black (Pro-White exemplars) • Admired Black and disliked White (Pro-Black exemplars) • Control: Insects and Flowers (Nonracial exemplars) • Results: • Implicit: Immediately following the exemplar task and after 24 hours, magnitude of automatic white preference was significantly smaller when pro-Black images rather than non-racial or pro-white images were made salient. • Explicit: Slight preference for European Americans over African Americans across condition.

5. Putting the Brakes on Prejudice: On the Development and Operation of Cues for ControlM. Monteith, L. Ashburn-Nardo, C. Voils, & A. Czopp A model concerning the establishment and operation of cues for control was developed and tested to understand how control can be exerted over (automatic) prejudiced responses. Cues for control are stimuli that are associated with prejudiced responses and the aversive consequences of those responses (e.g., guilt). In Experiments 1 and 2, 3 events critical to the establishment of cues occurred: behavioral inhibition, the experience of guilt, and retrospective reflection. In Experiment 3, the presentation of already-established cues for control did, as expected, produce behavioral inhibition. In Experiment 4, participants were provided with an experience in which cues could be established. Later presentation of those cues in a different task resulted in behavioral inhibition and less racially biased responses.

6. Experiments 3 & 4: Given stimuli expected to operate as cues for control, do participants demonstrate behavioral inhibition and generate alternative responses? Experiment 3: -Participants: Low and High prejudiced -Presented with photos of Black vs. White faces accompanied by person descriptions Critical sentences were stereotype-consistent (when paired with photos of Black faces) -Asked to respond with categories of people -e.g. “this person can be found behind bars” -Responses: “criminal” vs. “bartender” Low (but not high) prejudiced participants were slower to respond to pictures Experiment 4: -Participants: Low prejudiced -Took racial IAT (cue-establishing experience) -Measured negative self-directed affect -Responded with like/dislike to words (some Black names)  Participants with greater negative self-directed affect following IAT (cue) were slower to respond (B.I.), and more likely to report liking Black names Experiments 1 & 2: Do events that are theoretically necessary for the development of cues for control indeed occur? Participants: Low-prejudiced and at least somewhat prone to discrepant responses in relation to Black people False physiological feedback in response to racial vs. nonracial photos; several rounds (to measure subsequent B.I.) -Pause time following feedback (behavioral inhibition) Greater pause (greater behavioral inhibition) following racial photos compared to nonracial photos -How participants felt after feedback (negself) Greater negative self-directed affect (e.g. guilt) and discomfort in racial vs. nonracial [corr. w/ pause time] -Thought lists after experiment – how many reflect concern over inability to control arousal (retrospective reflection)  More likely to be concerned over inability to control arousal following racial vs. nonracial feedback

7. Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S.L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68. Abstract The present research examined how implicit racial associations and explicit racial attitudes of Whites relate to behaviors and impressions in interracial interactions. Specifically, the authors examined how response latency and self-report measures predicted bias and perceptions of bias in verbal and nonverbal behavior exhibited by Whites while they interacted with a Black partner. As predicted, Whites’ self-reported racial attitudes significantly predicted bias in their verbal behavior to Black relative to White confederates. Furthermore, these explicit attitudes predicted how much friendlier Whites felt that they behaved toward White than Black partners. In contrast, the response latency measure significantly predicted Whites’ nonverbal friendliness and the extent to which the confederates and observers perceived bias in the participants’ friendliness.

8. Dovidio, J.F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S.L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 62-68. Hypotheses: • During an interracial interaction, Blacks and Whites have fundamentally different perspectives on the attitudes and actions of Whites • White participants’ impressions of their friendliness will be predicted by their explicit racial attitudes and verbal behavior • Black partners’ and independent observers’ impressions of how friendly White participants are will be predicted by White participants implicit racial attitudes and non-verbal behaviors • Method: • Measure of explicit prejudice (self report) • Measure of implicit prejudice (response latency) • Videotaped interracial interaction with Black confederate • Participants’ friendliness was rated by themselves and Black confederate • Coders rated participants’ verbal and non-verbal behaviors, overall friendliness of participants Results: