Psychologists have long argued on the complexities of stereotype priming and whether such priming always leads to assimilation or could contrast also develop. This essay focuses on examining this central question by dwelling on the various studies conducted by social scientists which have yielded a variety of results.
The essay confirms that stereotype priming leads to assimilation in most cases. Automatic stereotyping can occur directly by perceiving a person executing a certain action. The activation of a mental representation of a social group leads to behaviour corresponding to specific attributes of the stereotype. People may assimilate their attitudes to those of the primed category even when the shift is in a direction that is not personally or socially desirable. Other researchers have studied the effects of priming racial stereotypes (negative stereotypes) in individuals who did not belong to the stereotyped groups. The studies proved that such priming reinforced assimilation and resulted in a negative outcome for the individuals. Negative stereotype priming however has been used by many countries to enhance the self-esteem of their ‘in-group’ or to justify their actions. However, not all stereotype priming leads to assimilation. Numerous studies have pointed out that priming, under differing circumstances can produce contrast or sometimes both. Theorists have held that while assimilation occurs almost by default, contrast requires certain other inputs to crystallize. These other factors could be by having exemplar priming or by self-activation. The essay concludes by stating that the last word on stereotype priming has not been written and that researchers will continue to discover new angles to the complex working of the human mind and human behaviour.
The Merriam-Webster online dictionary (2009) holds that a stereotype is “something conforming to a fixed or general pattern; especially: a standardized mental picture that is held in common by members of a group and that represents an oversimplified opinion, prejudiced attitude, or uncritical judgment”. Priming refers to the incidental activation of knowledge structures, such as trait concepts and stereotypes, by the current situational context (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996, p. 230). Assimilation is the cognitive process of fitting new information into existing cognitive schemas, perceptions, and understanding. A Contrast on the other hand is a mechanism by which the new information because of its perceived or actual variance with the stored information leads to different conclusions for the observer. Psychologists have long argued on the complexities of stereotype priming and whether such priming always leads to assimilation or could contrast also develop. This essay focuses on examining this central question by dwelling on the various studies conducted by social scientists which have yielded a variety of results.
Humans tend to categorize objects, people and events in simplified categories for the ease of responding to them when the situation so demands. “We group things into categories because we expect things in a particular category to behave in a similar manner so that we have a simple way of understanding the behaviour”(Schneider, 2004, P.64). It is because of this reason we have many predictable results for some set pieces of information and at times this leads to automatic stereotyping. Automatic stereotyping can occur “directly by perceiving a person executing a certain action” ( Kawakami et. al, 2002, p.5). For example, a vision of an old man is automatically associated with the quality of ‘slowness’. The activation of a mental representation of a social group leads to behaviour corresponding to specific attributes of the stereotype (Dijksterhuis & van Knippenberg, 1998, p. 873). For example, a control group primed with the characteristics of a professor was found to answer more general knowledge questions correctly than an unprimed control group. This has been corroborated by Dijksterhuis and Bargh (2001) who state that primed traits lead to assimilation (p. 22). In their study, the researchers primed a group of participants with a positive set of traits of a control candidate and then were asked how they rated the control candidate. The group reported more positive impressions of that candidate than another participant group who had been primed with a negative set of traits of the control candidate.
Kawakami, Dovidio and Dijksterhuis (2003) have found that people may assimilate their attitudes to those of the primed category even when the shift is in a direction that is not personally or socially desirable (p. 318). For example, a control group of African Americans were primed on the perceived stereotype of African Americans being poor in mathematics actually ended up scoring low in mathematics tests conducted. Assimilation also depends on the perceived preferences of the people. Hall and Crisp (2008) observe that some groups matter to some people more than others and in such cases people self-stereotype (p. 344).
For priming a stereotype some researchers have held that accessibility of the information and the applicability of the interpretation is a prerequisite for assimilation and are sufficient to affect a person’s judgment in forming a stereotype. Others such as Stapel and Koomen (1998) state that stereotype-relevant knowledge will be used only if the social category of the target matches the activated stereotype (p. 137). For example, if a control group were to be primed to assimilate traits of aggressive behaviour, they would most likely associate it with a man rather than women as socially, women are not supposed to be aggressive. Thus activation of a stereotype will also depend on the degree of association. Dijksterhuis et.al state that the “differences in the degree of stereotype activation can also be caused by differences in the strength of the association between a category and a stereotype” (2000, p. 533).
Other researchers have studied the effects of priming racial stereotypes (negative stereotypes) in individuals who did not belong to the stereotyped groups. The studies proved that such priming reinforced assimilation and resulted in a negative outcome for the individuals. This was proved by Wheeler, Jarvis and Petty (2001) who in their study concluded that “Non-African-American students for whom the African American stereotype was activated performed worse on a standardized math test than those who were not so primed” (p. 179). Negative stereotype priming however has been used by many countries to enhance the self-esteem of their ‘in-group’ or to justify their actions. The US Armed forces routinely used the stereotypes of ‘slant eyed’, ‘monkeys’ and ‘japs’ to bolster the morale of the troops in their fight against the Japanese during the Second World War and the Vietcong during the Vietnam War. Such actions have been theorized by behavioural scientists as “positive self-stereotypes and negative out-group stereotypes (that) constitute positive inputs to social identity”(Klein & Azzi, 2001, p.280).
Blanton, Crocker and Miller (2000) through their excellent research have found that psychological closeness can lead to activation of a comparison process and a reflection process on a self-esteem-relevant task (p. 525). The study showed that if African American students were to be socially compared with a white student on an upward social scale, they would perceive a lowering of self-esteem but if they were to be upward social comparison with another Africa- American student the students showed higher self-esteem.
However, not all stereotype priming leads to assimilation. Numerous studies have pointed out that priming, under differing circumstances can produce contrast or sometimes both. Hicklin and Wedell (2007) have found that assimilation is not likely to happen when group members are well distinguished in memory along the relevant dimension of judgment (p. 431). In such cases, the contrast was more likely than assimilation. Where the individual memory recall is hazy and a clear individual judgment becomes difficult, then members of a group tend to follow the groupthink and assimilation occurs.
Priming can lead to either assimilation or contrast. Many studies have focused on the fact that this priming has a significant effect on the intellectual behaviour of a group. Theorists have held that while assimilation occurs almost by default, contrast requires certain other inputs to crystallize. These other factors could be by having exemplar priming or by self-activation. However, it was not necessary that self-activation would lead to contrast. At times, it “can also enhance assimilation depending on the activated self-concept” (Bry, Follenfant, & Meyer, 2008, p. 755).
Dijksterhuis et. al (1998) have found that ” Traits and stereotypes elicit assimilation, priming of exemplars can elicit judgmental contrast by evoking social comparisons” (p. 862). For example, if a control group is primed to consider a target individual as hostile then the group predictably produces an assimilative reaction of judging that person to be hostile. However, if the same group is primed with an example of Adolf Hitler and then asked to judge the target individual, the comparative knowledge about the example shows a judgmental reaction that ranges as the target individual could not be that hostile as Hitler. Thus there is a specific contrast generated. Hence in this case of stereotype priming, contrast and not assimilation is the result.
A study by Bless et.al (2001) concluded that assimilation was less vigorous when the participants were induced to introduce an atypical exemplar in the group category (p. 391). The authors also found that the atypical exemplar came to be viewed more stereotypically when viewed from within the group rather than when he was out of it. Thus assimilation and contrast both occurred depending upon where one looked at the case. Activation of positive stereotypes led to a performance boost that showed assimilation as well as contrast effects depending upon the degree of the stimuli. This was proved by Shih et. al (2002) who state that “stereotype targets evidenced assimilation effects in response to subtly presented stimuli and contrast effects in response to blatantly presented stimuli” (p. 645).
In conclusion, it can be stated that under many conditions, stereotype priming usually produced assimilation. This is not a universal rule. Under certain conditions and circumstances, priming can produce contrast or sometimes both assimilation as well as contrast. This is especially true in conditions of self-activation as well as in situations where exemplar priming evoked comparative judgment. Researchers continue to study the subject from different angles. With advances in technology, better tools and a better understanding of the human mind, behavioural scientists will continue to explore the inner workings of the human mind and human behaviour.
Works Cited
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of Social Behavior: Direct Effects of Trait Construct and Stereotype Activation on Action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 71, No. 2, , 230-244.
Blanton, H., Crocker, J., & Miller, D. T. (2000). The Effects of In-Group versus Out-Group Social Comparison on Self-Esteem in the Context of a Negative Stereotype. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36, , 519-530.
Bless, H., Schwarz, N., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Thiel, L. (2001). Personalized versus Generalized Benefits of Stereotype Disconfirmation: Trade-offs in the Evaluation of Atypical Exemplars and Their Social Groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37, , 386–397.
Bry, C., Follenfant, A., & Meyer, T. (2008). Blonde like me: When self-construals moderate stereotype priming effects on intellectual performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 , 751-757.
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The Perception-Behavior Expressway: Automatic Effects of Social Perception on Social Behavior.
Dijksterhuis, A., & van Knippenberg, A. (1998). The relation between perception and behavior, or how to win a game of trivial pursuit. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 74(4) , 865-877.
Dijksterhuis, A., Aarts, H., Bargh, J. A., & Knippenberg, A. v. (2000). On the Relation between Associative Strength and Automatic Behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 36, , 531-544.
Dijksterhuis, A., van Knippenberg, A., Spears, R., Postmes, T., Stapel, D. A., Koomen, W., et al. (1998). Seeing One Thing and Doing Another:Contrast Effects in Automatic Behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Vol 75 No.4 , 862-871.
Hall, N. R., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Assimilation and contrast to group primes: The moderating role of ingroup identification. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 44 , 344-353.
Hicklin, S. K., & Wedell, D. H. (2007). Learning Group Differrences:Implications for Contrast and Assimilation in Stereotyping. Social Cognition, Vol. 25, No. 3 , 410-454.
Kawakami, K., Dovidio, J. F., & Dijksterhuis, A. (2003). Effect of Social Category Priming on Personal Attitudes. American Psychological Society VOL. 14, NO. 4, , 315-319.
Kawakami, Kerry, Young Heather & Dovidio, John F. (2002). Automatic Stereotyping: Category, Trait, and Behavioral Activations. PSPB, Vol. 28 No. 1, 2002. Web.
Klein, Olivier & Azzi, Assaad E. (2001). The Strategic Confirmation of Meta-Stereotypes: How Group Members Attempt to Tailor An Out-group’s Representation of Themselves. British Journal of Social Psychology (2001), 40, 279–293. Web.
Shih, M., Ambady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., & M, G. H. (2002). Stereotype Performance Boosts: The Impact of Self-Relevance and the Manner of Stereotype Activation. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 83, No. 3, , 638–647.
Schneider, David J. (2004). The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York: Guilford Press. 2004.
Stapel, D. A., & Koomen, W. (1998). When Stereotype Activation Results in (Counter)Stereotypical Judgments: Priming Stereotype-Relevant Traits and Exemplars. JOURNAL OF EXPERIMENTAL SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 34 , 136-163.
Wheeler, C. S., Jarvis, W. B., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Think Unto Others: The Self-Destructive Impact of Negative Racial Stereotypes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 37 , 173-180.