characteristics and behavior exercise greater impact on judgments than do simple group stereotypes (Bless et al., in press; Fiske & Neuberg, 1980).
In sum, to the extent perceivers are motivated to process information carefully and have sufficient time to do so, to the extent affect is not so strong as to distract them from attending to the actions of the target, and to the extent the target is atypical in word or deed, perceivers’ judgments will be based more strongly on individuating information present in the situation and less on stereotypes and prejudice about the outgroup. More- over, closer attention to the target will promote more affect infusion such that positive mood should lead to a more positive evaluation and negative mood to a more negative evaluation of the target.
contact experiences, what other implications might be drawn from the literature on affect and bias that bear upon the contact hypothesis?
If we apply research on affect and bias to the contact situation, we immediately stumble. Much of the reviewed research indicates that happiness, anger, and anxiety foster superficial processing and reliance on existing prejudice and stereotypes. On the other hand, other research suggests that a sad or a neutral mood is more conducive to notic- ing and carefully processing information in a contact situation. This pattern of findings augurs poorly for the beneficial effects of pleasant contact with an outgroup.
Although it is tempting to infer that a good mood might be detrimental to reducing bias, that nonobvious “man bites dog” conclusion would be premature for two reasons.
First, Stroessner, Hamilton, and Mackie (1992) have evidence that a positive mood can prevent the formation of stereotypes based on illusory correlations. In their experiment happy or neutral subjects were exposed to a standard illusory correlation paradigm (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976). They saw information about two groups (A and B): 24 descriptions of group A – 16 desirable and 8 undesirable behaviors; 12 descriptions of group B – 8 desirable and 4 undesirable behaviors. Thus, the proportion of desirable and undesirable descriptors were the same for both groups. In the neutral mood condition subjects rated group B less favorably than group A (illusory correlation effect). Thus, the less frequent and, therefore, more distinct negative behaviors had a greater impact for evaluations of group B. On the other hand, in the happy mood condition, both groups were rated equally. Stroessner et al. argued that the happy mood resulted in less careful processing of the information. Consequently, happy subjects were less attendant to the distinctive negative information about group B and less likely to form a negative stereotype.
Second, as the research on affect infusion (e.g., Forgas, 1995; Forgas & Fiedler, 1996) has demonstrated, the influence of mood on thoughts and actions tends to be affect- consistent and more pronounced with additional processing time. The key for successful contact, then, appears to be to encourage persons in a pleasant mood to attend closely to the actions of the outgroup in the positive contact setting. Close attention to the out- group’s actions should counter the superficial processing tendency associated with a posi- tive mood, should provide opportunity for greater affect infusion, and should generate concrete positive experiences that prolong the positive mood state.
Close attention to the outgroup can be facilitated by the factors discussed above: moti- vational demands, temporal demands, and task demands. Prompting interactants for accuracy, allowing sufficient time for positive mood infusion, and presenting them with contact persons who clearly disconfirm biases should provide the opportunity both for maximum mood infusion and generation of positive cognitions that are inconsistent with existing biases (Hewstone & Lord, 1998; Wilder, 1984). This recommendation fits with what is known about successful contact (e.g., Amir, 1969). Past research has concluded that contact is most successful when it involves cooperative pursuit of shared goals, equal status, intimacy, and support from others. Moreover, as Pettigrew (1998) has pointed out, positive contact is more likely to be successful if it occurs frequently and if each experience is not so brief as to preclude the formation of friendship bonds across groups.
These are all conditions that are likely to lead to careful processing of information and the opportunity for infusion of positive affect.
Conclusions
The notion that affective states can influence judgments of groups is certainly not new (e.g., Allport, 1954). What is relatively recent, however, is a body of literature that has examined the impact of different affective states on judgments of outgroups using care- fully controlled experiments. This chapter has focused on that literature and five hypothe- ses that have been offered to explain the role of affect in intergroup judgments. We have offered a two-component synthesis of those hypotheses: The influence of affect on inter- group judgments is mediated by how the affect influences allocation of attention and opportunity for infusion.
It should be noted that most of this literature has been generated by laboratory exper- iments in which affect is manipulated independently of the judged outgroup; that is, inci- dental to the outgroup (Bodenhausen, 1993). One may question whether the same findings would be observed were the affect integral; that is, caused by or attributed to the outgroup. One set of experiments (Wilder & Shapiro, 1989a) did employ integral affect by having the manipulation of affect linked to the behavior of members of the target outgroup. The results from this study were the same as when affect was manipulated incidental to the outgroup.
Finally, it should be noted that this literature has focused on judgments of outgroups.
But certainly affect also exerts influence on judgments of ingroups. (In a recent chapter in this handbook series, Kelly (in press) has looked at mood and emotion within groups.) Affective relations among ingroup members may very likely contribute to affect directed toward an outgroup. (For example, see Allport’s (1954) discussion of projection.) In a complementary fashion, affect generated by an outgroup may influence judgments of the ingroup. There is evidence that the mere salience of an outgroup is sufficient to make salient a perceiver’s relevant ingroup (Wilder & Shapiro, 1986). Because outgroups and corresponding ingroups are linked, it is probable that affect associated with one has impli- cations for affect and judgments toward the other. One direction that may prove fruitful is to expand the current research beyond examining how affect influences judgments of outgroups to a broader consideration of the influence of affect on judgments of ingroup–outgroup pairings.
References
Abelson, R. P., Aronson, E., McGuire, W. J., Newcomb, T. M., Rosenberg, M. J., & Tannenbaum, P. H. (1968). Theories of cognitive consistency. Chicago, IL: Rand McNally.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswick, E., Levinson, D., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. New York: Harper.
Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
Amir, Y. (1969). Contact hypothesis in ethnic relations. Psychological Bulletin,71, 319–342.
Baron, R. S., Burgess, M. L., Kao, C. F., & Logan, H. (1990). Fear and superficial social process- ing: Evidence of stereotyping and simplistic persuasion.Paper presented at the annual convention of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL.
Berkowitz, L. (1990). On the formation and regulation of anger and aggression: A cognitive-neoas- sociationistic analysis. American Psychologist,45, 494–503.
Berkowitz, L. (1993). Aggression: Its causes, consequences, and control. New York: McGraw- Hill.
Bies, R. J. (1987). The predicament of injustice: The management of moral outrage. In L. Cummings & B. M. Staw (Eds.), Research in organizational behavior(Vol. 9, pp. 289–319).
Greenwich, CT: JAI.
Bies, R. J., Tripp, T. M., & Kramer, R. M. (1996). At the breaking point: Cognitive and social dynamics of revenge in organizations. In J. Greenberg & R. Giacalone (Eds.), Antisocial behav- ior in organizations. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Bless, H., & Fiedler, K. (1995). Affective states and the influence of activated general knowledge.
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 766–778.
Bless, H., Mackie, D. M., & Schwarz, N. (1992). Mood effects on encoding and judgmental processes in persuasion. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,63, 585–595.
Bless, H., Schwarz, N., & Kemmelmeier, M. (in press). Mood and stereotyping: Affective states and the use of general knowledge structures. In W. Stroebe & M. Hewstone (Eds.), European review of social psychology(Vol. 7). New York: Wiley.
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1993). Emotions, arousal, and stereotypic judgments: A heuristic model of affect and stereotyping. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereo- typing(pp. 13–37). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Bodenhausen, G. V., & Kramer, G. P. (1990). Affective states trigger stereotypic judgments.
Paper presented at the annual convention of the American Psychological Society, Dallas, TX.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Kramer, G. P., & Susser, K. (1994). Happiness and stereotypic thinking in social judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 621–632.
Bodenhausen, G. V., Sheppard, L. A., & Kramer, G. P. (1994). Negative affect and social judg- ment: The differential impact of anger and sadness. European Journal of Social Psychology,24, 45–62.
Bower, G. H. (1981). Mood and memory. American Psychologist,36, 129–148.
Brewer, M. B. (1981). Ethnocentrism and its role in interpersonal trust. In M. B. Brewer & B. E.
Collins (Eds.), Scientific inquiry and the social sciences(pp. 345–360). San Francisco, CA: Josey- Bass.
Brewer, M. B. (1988). A dual-process model of impression formation. In T. K. Srull & R. S. Wyer (Eds.), Advances in social cognition(Vol. 1, pp. 1–36). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Brewer, M. B., & Miller, N. (1984). Beyond the contact hypothesis: Theoretical perspectives on desegregation. In N. Miller & M. B. Brewer (Eds.), Groups in contact: The psychology of desegre- gation(pp. 281–302). Orlando, FL: Academic Press.
Byrne, D., & Clore, G. L. (1970). A reinforcement model of evaluation responses. Personality: An International Journal,1, 103–128.
Campbell, D. T. (1975). On the conflict between biological and social evolution and between psychology and moral tradition. American psychologist,30, 1103–1126.
Clore, G. L., & Byrne, D. (1974). The reinforcement affect model of attraction. In L.
Huston (Ed.), Foundations of interpersonal attraction(pp. 143–170). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Clore, G. L., Schwarz, N., & Conway, M. (1994). Cognitive causes and consequences of emotion.
In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (2nd ed., pp. 323–417).
Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dollard, J., Doob, L. W., Miller, N. E., Mowrer, O. H., & Sears, R. R. (1939). Frustration and aggression. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.
Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In N. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Foundations of stereotypes and stereotyping(pp. 337–366). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L., Isen, A. M., & Lawrence, R. (1995). Group representations and intergroup bias: Positive affect, similarity, and group size. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,21, 856–865.
Easterbrook, J. A. (1959). The effect of emotion on cue utilization and the organization of behav- ior. Psychological Review,66, 183–201.
Fiedler, K. (1991). On the task, the measures and the mood in research on affect and social cognition. In J. P. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgment (pp. 83–104). Elmsford, NY:
Pergamon Press.
Fiske, S. T., & Morlin, B. (1996). Stereotyping as a function of personal control motives and capacity constraints: The odd couple of power and anxiety. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interpersonal context(Vol. 3, pp. 322–346).
New York: Guilford.
Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention and inter- pretation. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 23, pp. 1–74). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Forgas, J. P. (1989). Mood effects on decision-making strategies. Australian Journal of Psychology, 41, 197–214.
Forgas, J. P. (1995). Mood and judgment: The affect infusion model (AIM). Psychological Bulletin, 117, 39–66.
Forgas, J. P., & Fiedler, K. (1996). Us and them: Mood effects on intergroup discrimination. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70, 28–40.
Forgas, J. P., & Moylan, S. J. (1991). Affective influences on stereotype judgments.Cognition and Emotion,5, 379–397.
Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception:
A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392–407.
Hamilton, D. L., & Rose, T. L. (1980). Illusory correlation and the maintenance of stereotypic belief. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,19, 832–845.
Hewstone, M., & Brown, R. (1986). Contact is not enough: An intergroup perspective on the contact hypothesis. In M. Hewstone & R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters(pp. 169–195). Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Hewstone, M., & Lord, C. G. (1998). Changing intergroup cognitions and intergroup behavior:
The role of typicality. In C. Sedikides, J. Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior(pp. 367–392). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J., Bell, L. M., & Kypri, K. (1997). Intergroup bias and self-evaluation:
Domain-specific self-esteem, threats to identity and dimensional importance. British Journal of Social Psychology,36, 405–426.
Hunter, J. A., Platow, M. J., & Howard, M. L. (1996). Social identity and intergroup evaluative bias: Realistic categories and domain specific self-esteem in a conflict setting. European Journal of Social Psychology,26, 631–647.
Isen, A. (1984). Toward understanding the role of affect in cognition. In R. S. Wyer & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (Vol. 20, pp. 179–236). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Isen, A. (1987). Positive affect, cognitive processes and social behavior. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 20, pp. 203–253). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Isen, A. M., & Daubman, K. A. (1984). The influence of affect on categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47, 1206–1217.
Isen, A. M., Niedenthal, P. M., & Cantor, N. (1992). An influence of positive affect on social categorization.Motivation and Emotion,16, 65–78.
Islam, M. R., & Hewstone, M. (1993). Dimensions of contact as predictors of intergroup anxiety, perceived out-group variability, and out-group attitude: An integrative model. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,19, 700–710.
Kahneman, D. (1973). Attention and effort. Englewood Cliff, NJ: Prentice-Hall.
Kelly, J. R. (in press). Mood and emotion in groups. In M. Hogg & S. Tindale (Eds.), Blackwell handbook in social psychology, Vol. 3: Group Processes. Oxford, UK: Blackwell.
Kramer, R. M., & Messick, D. M. (1998). Getting by with a little help from our enemies: Col- lective paranoia and its role in intergroup relations. In C. Sedikides, Schopler, & C. A. Insko (Eds.), Intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior(pp. 233–255). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.
Jones, E. E., & Davis, K. E. (1965). A theory of correspondent inferences: From acts to disposi- tions. In L. Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology (Vol. 2). New York:
Academic Press.
Kruglanski, A. W. (1989). Lay epistemics and human knowledge: Cognitive and motivational bases.
New York: Plenum.
Lemyre, L., & Smith, P. M. (1985). Intergroup discrimination and self-esteem in the minimal group paradigm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,49, 660–670.
LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, and group behavior. New York: Wiley.
Mackie, D. M., Hamilton, D. L., Schroth, H. A., Carlisle, C. J., Gersho, B. F., Meneses, M., Nedler, B. F., & Reichel, L. D. (1989). The effects of induced mood on expectancy-based illu- sory correlations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,25, 524–544.
Mackie, D. M., Queller, S., & Stroessner, S. J. (1994). The impact of positive mood on percep- tions of behavioral consistency and member typicality in social groups. Unpublished manuscipt, University of California, Santa Barbara.
Mackie, D. M., Queller, S., Stroessner, S. J., & Hamilton, D. L. (1996). Making stereotypes better or worse: Multiple roles for positive affect in group impressions. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T.
Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition (Vol. 3, pp. 371–396). New York:
Guilford Press.
Mackie, D. M., & Worth, L. T. (1989). Cognitive deficits and the mediation of positive affect in persuasion.Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,57, 27–40.
Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving devices:
A peek inside the toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,66, 37–47.
Meindl, J. R., & Lerner, M. (1984). Exacerbation of extreme responses to an out-group. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,47, 71–84.
Messick, D. M., & Mackie, D. M. (1989). Intergroup relations. In M. R. Rosenzweig & W.
Porter (Eds.), Annual review of psychology (Vol. 40, pp. 45–81). Palo Alto, CA: Annual Reviews.
Oakes, P. J., & Turner, J. C. (1980). Social categorization and intergroup behaviour: Does minimal intergroup discrimination make social identity more positive? European Journal of Social Psychology,10, 295–301.
Paulhus, D. L., & Lim, T. K. (1994). Arousal and evaluative extremity in social judgments: A dynamic complexity model. European Journal of Social Psychology,24, 89–100.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1986). The intergroup contact hypothesis reconsidered. In M. Hewstone &
R. Brown (Eds.), Contact and conflict in intergroup encounters (pp. 169–195). Oxford, UK:
Blackwell.
Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual review of psychology(Vol. 49, pp. 65–85).
Annual Reviews.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986a). The elaboration likelihood model of persuasion. In L.
Berkowitz (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 19). New York: Academic Press.
Petty, R. E., & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986b). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
Pyszczynski, T. A., & Greenberg, J. (1987). Depression, self-focused attention, and self-regulatory presevation. In C. R. Snyder & C. E. Ford (Eds.), Coping with negative life events: Clinical and social psychological perspectives (pp. 105–129). New York: Plenum Press.
Schachter, S., & Singer, J. (1962). Cognitive, social, and physiological determinants of the emo- tional state. Psychological Review,69, 379–399.
Schwarz, N. (1990). Feelings as information: Informational and motivational functions of affec- tive states. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition:
Foundations of social behavior(Vol. 2, pp. 527–561). New York: Guilford.
Schwarz, N., & Bless, H. (1991). Happy and mindless, but sad and smart? The impact of affec- tive states on analytic reasoning. In J. Forgas (Ed.), Emotion and social judgments(pp. 55–71).
Oxford, UK: Pergamon.
Schwarz, N., Bless, H., & Bohner, G. (1991). Mood and persuasion: Affective states influence the processing of persuasive communications. In M. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology(Vol. 24, pp. 161–197). New York: Academic Press.
Schwarz, N., & Clore, G. L. (1988). How do I feel about it? The informative function of affec- tive states. In K. Fiedler & J. P. Forgas (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and social behavior(pp. 44–62).
Göttingen, Germany: Hogrefe.
Sherif, M. (1966). In common predicament: Social psychology of intergroup conflict and cooperation.
Boston, MA: Houghton-Mifflin.
Sinclair, R. C., Mark, M. M., & Clore, G. L. (1994). Mood-related persuasion depends on mis- attributions.Social Cognition,12, 309–326.
Staats, A. W., & Staats, C. K. (1958). Attitudes established by classical conditioning. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,57, 37–40.
Stephan, W. G. (1987). The contact hypothesis in intergroup relations. In C. Hendrick (Ed.), Review of personality and social psychology(Vol. 9, pp. 13–40). Newbury Park, CA: Sage.
Stephan, W. G., & Stephan, C. W. (1985). Intergroup anxiety. Journal of Social Issues,41, 157–175.
Stroessner, S. J., Hamilton, D. L., & Mackie, D. M. (1992). Affect and stereotyping: The effect of induced mood on distinctiveness-based illusory correlations. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,62, 564–576.
Stroessner, S. J., & Mackie, D. M. (1992). The impact of induced affect on the perception of vari- ability in social groups. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,18, 546–554.
Stroessner, S. J., & Mackie, D. M. (1993). Affect and perceived group variability: Implications for stereotyping and prejudice. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception(pp. 63–86). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Tajfel, H. (1982). Social identity and intergroup behaviour. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
Trivers, R. L. (1971). The evolution of reciprocal altruism. Quarterly review of Biology,46, 35–57.
Turner, J. C. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization theory.Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.
Wilder, D. A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical members and the exception to the rule.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,20, 177–194.
Wilder, D. A. (1993a). The role of anxiety in facilitating stereotypic judgments of outgroup behav- ior. In D. M. Mackie & D. L. Hamilton (Eds.), Affect, cognition, and stereotyping: Interactive processes in group perception(pp. 87–109). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.
Wilder, D. A. (1993b). Freezing intergroup evaluations: Anxiety fosters resistance to counter- stereotypic information. In M. A. Hogg & D. Abrams (Eds.), Group motivation: Social psycho- logical perspectives(pp. 68–86). New York: Harvester/Wheatsheaf.
Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. (1989a). Role of competition-induced anxiety in limiting the bene- ficial impact of positive behavior by an outgroup member. Journal of . . .
Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. (1989b). Effects of anxiety on impression formation in a group context: An anxiety-assimilation hypothesis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 482–499.
Wilder, D. A., & Shapiro, P. (1991). Facilitation of outgroup stereotypes by enhanced ingroup identity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,27, 431–452.
Wilder, D. A., & Simon, A. F. (1996). Incidental and integral affect as triggers of stereotyping. In R. M. Sorrentino & E. T. Higgins (Eds.), Handbook of motivation and cognition: The interper- sonal context(Vol. 3, pp. 397–419). New York: Guilford Press.
Wills, T. A. (1981). Downward comparison principles in social psychology. Psychological Bulletin, 90, 245–271.
Worchel, S. (1986). The role of cooperation in reducing intergroup conflict. In S. Worchel & W.
G. Austin (Eds.), Psychology of intergroup relations(2nd ed., pp. 288–304). Chicago, IL: Nelson- Hall.
Zillman, D. (1983). Transfer of excitation in emotional behavior. In J. T. Cacioppo & R. E. Petty (Eds.), Social psychophysiology. New York: Academic Press.
Prejudice
9 Implicit and Explicit Attitudes: Examination of the Relationship
between Measures of Intergroup Bias 175
John F. Dovidio, Kerry Kawakami, and Kelly R. Beach
10 Classic and Contemporary Analyses of Racial Prejudice 198 Patricia G. Devine, E. Ashby Plant, and Irene V. Blair
11 Sexism: Attitudes, Beliefs, and Behaviors 218
Janet K. Swim andBernadette Campbell
12 Psychological Consequences of Devalued Identities 238 Jennifer Crocker andDiane M.Quinn