How to Avoid Stereotypes? Evaluation of a Strategy based on Self-Regulatory Processes

  1. María Aranda 1
  2. Beatriz Montes-Berges 1
  1. 1 Universidad de Jaén (Spain)
Revista:
The Spanish Journal of Psychology

ISSN: 1138-7416

Año de publicación: 2016

Volumen: 19

Tipo: Artículo

DOI: 10.1017/SJP.2016.36 DIALNET GOOGLE SCHOLAR lock_openAcceso abierto editor

Otras publicaciones en: The Spanish Journal of Psychology

Objetivos de desarrollo sostenible

Resumen

Based on research on the motivational processes involved in preventing and controlling stereotypes, we aimed to assess whether temporary activation of egalitarian goals – by means of a task that gives respondents exposure to a text on gender inequality – can prevent stereotyped answers on the task. The task asks participants to place women and men into a hierarchical organizational structure. Two specific objectives were established: first, to control the effect of prejudice and egalitarian commitment on the dependent variable; and second, to study gender differences in task responses. The study included 474 college students, 153 men and 321 women. Their mean age was 20.04 (SD = 4.43). ANCOVA indicated main effects of condition, F(1) = 4.15, p = .042, η2 = .081 (control condition without goal activation vs. experimental condition with goal activation) and sex, F(1) = 40.46, p < .001, η2 = .081, on the dependent variable (female candidates placed in the chart). Specifically, responses from participants in the experimental condition avoided stereotyped answers more than participants in the control condition. Furthermore, women’s performance on the task was more egalitarian than men’s. Finally, there was a significant interaction effect of condition and type of organization, F(2) = 3.97, p = .019, η2 = .017; participants assigning candidates to the feminized organization differed the most across conditions.

Referencias bibliográficas

  • Aranda M., & Montes-Berges B. (2013). De la discriminación al compromiso igualitario: Construcción de una escala de prejuicio y metas igualitarias [From discrimination to commitment with equality: Building a scale of prejudice and egalitarian goals]. Revista Acción Psicológica, 10, 167–178. http://dx.doi.org/10.5944/ap.10.2.12219
  • Bargh J. A. (1999). The cognitive monster. In S. Chalken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 361–382). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
  • Bargh J. A., Gollwitzer P. M., & Oettingen G. (2010). Motivation. In S. Fiske, D. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th Ed., pp. 268–316). New Jersey, NJ: John Wiley & Sons.
  • Bargh J. A., & Morsella E. (2009). Unconscious behavioral guidance systems. In C. Agnew, D. Carlston, W. Graziano, & J. Kelly (Eds.), Then a miracle occurs: Focusing on behavior in social psychological theory and research (pp. 89–118). New York, NY: Oxford University Press.
  • Billig M., & Tajfel M. (1973). Social categorization and similarity in intergroup behaviour. European Journal of Social Psychology, 3, 27–52. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ ejsp.2420030103
  • Casper C., Rothermund K., & Wentura D. (2010). Automatic stereotype activation is context dependent. Social Psychology, 41, 131–136. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/ 1864-9335/a000019
  • Dasgupta N., & Asgari S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40, 642–658. http://dx. doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
  • Degner J., Meiser T., & Rothermund K. (2009). Stereotypes and prejudices as the basis of discrimination: A socialcognitive perspective. In A. Beelmann & K. Jonas (Eds.), Diskriminierung und toleranz: Psychologische grundlagen und anwendungsperspektiven [Discrimination and prejudice: Basic and applied psychological perspective] (pp. 75–93). Wiesbaden, Germany: Verlag für Sozialwissenschaften.
  • Devine P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.56.1.5
  • Devine P. G., Plant E. A., Amodio D. M., Harmon-Jones E., & Vance S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 835–848. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835
  • Diekman A. B., & Eagly A. H. (2000). Stereotypes as dynamic constructs: Women and men of the past, present, and future. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1171–1188. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200262001
  • Eagly A. H. (1987). Sex differences in social behavior: A social-role interpretation. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Fazio R. H., & Petty R. E. (2008). Attitudes: Their structure, function and consequences. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
  • Glick P., & Fiske S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491
  • Higgins E. T. (1987). Self-discrepancy: A theory relating self and affect. Psychological Review, 94, 319–340. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0033-295X.94.3.319
  • Hoffman C., & Hurst N. (1990). Gender stereotypes: Perception or rationalization? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 58, 197–208. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0022-3514.58.2.197
  • Hugenberg K., Blusiewicz R. L., & Sacco D. F. (2010). On malleable and inmalleable subtypes: Stereotype malleability in one subtype does not spill over to other prominent subtypes. Social Psychology, 41, 124–130. http://dx.doi.org/10.1027/1864-9335/a000018
  • Jost J. T., & Major B. (Eds.) (2001). The psychology of legitimacy: Emerging perspectives on ideology, justice, and intergroup relations. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press.
  • Macrae C. N., Milne A. B., & Bodenhausen G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 37–47. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/ 0022-3514.66.1.37
  • Michinov N., Dambrun M., Guimond S., & Méot A. (2005). Social dominance orientation, prejudice, and discrimination: A new computer-based method for studying discriminatory behaviors. Behavior Research Methods, 37, 91–98. http://dx.doi.org/10.3758/ BF03206402
  • Monteith M. J., Mark A. Y., & Ashburn-Nardo L. (2010). The self-regulation of prejudice: Toward understanding its lived character. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 13, 183–200. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430209353633
  • Moskowitz G. B. (Ed.) (2001). Cognitive social psychology: The Princeton Symposium on the Legacy and Future of Social Cognition. Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
  • Moskowitz G. B. (2002). Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 397–404. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/S00221031(02)00001-X
  • Moskowitz G. B., Gollwitzer P. M., Wasel W., & Schaal B. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167–184. http://dx.doi. org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.167
  • Moskowitz G. B., Li P., Ignarri C., & Stone J. (2011). Compensatory cognition associated with egalitarian goals. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47, 365–370. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2010.08.010
  • Moskowitz G. B., Salomon A. R., & Taylor C. M. (2000). Implicit control of stereotype activation through the preconscious operation of egalitarian goals. Social Cognition, 18, 151–177.
  • Rudman L. A., & Mescher K. (2013, January). Capturing sexual aggression in the lab: Implicit female dehumanization and a rape behavioral analogue. Presentation at the annual preconference meetings of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology. New Orleans, LA.
  • Smith V. (2006). La psicología social de las relaciones intergrupales: Modelos e hipótesis [Social psychology of intergroup relationship: Models and hypothesis]. Actualidades en Psicología, 20, 45–71.
  • Smith E. R., & Zárate M. A. (1992). Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychological Review, 99, 3–21. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.99.1.3
  • Tajfel H., Flament C., Billig M. G., & Bundy R. F. (1971). Social categorization and intergroup behavior. European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149–178. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1002/ejsp.2420010202
  • Tougas F., Brown R., Beaton A. M., & Joly S. (1995). Neosexism: Plus ça change, plus c’est pareil [Neosexism: The more things change, the more they stay the same]. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 842–849. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167295218007
  • Wicklund R. A., & Gollwitzer P. M. (1982). Symbolic self-completion. Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Fuente de los datos: Dialnet