Stereotypes and Prejudice: Their Automatic and Controlled Components

I was intrigued by the thought process toward prejudice exhibited behind the scenes in an article which I recently read. Generally, one would think of prejudice as a feeling, an emotion, something that is indescribable, but to quote a line once used by a legislator to describe pornography, something that “I know it when I see it.”

In her article, Patricia Devine, a professor at the University of Wisconsin, reflects on the results of three studies, which attempted to quantify the correlation between stereotypes and prejudice. Her analysis of the findings are worthy of further review.

To use the abstract as a foundation, the three studies tested basic assumptions derived from a theoretical model based on the dissociation of automatic and controlled processes involved in prejudice. The two dozen or so individuals were tested using an instrument aimed to identify high and low prejudice persons. After being identified, they were divided into two groups, but not made aware of why they were associated with their partners. In statistical terms, these were between-subjects studies.

The first study aimed to support the belief that high- and low- prejudice persons are equally knowledgeable of the cultural stereotype. The second examined the effects of the automatic stereotype activation and the third examined responses of both types while they performed a consciously directed thought-listing task.

Many of the responses were derived from activities which required split second responses. At first thought, my memory went back to the Harvard implicit tests I engaged in during Cultural Competency and Leadership class earlier this semester. The objective with the Harvard test was to make subjects select from between a choice of two words without having time to consciously construct their answer. Therefore, the snap response, or automatic reaction, is the chosen one.

I wrote of my disapproval toward the Harvard tests here, at least for the ones which I completed. In my mind, the best results will not always be found by repeating the same approach. Because Devine analyzed three different tests with different approaches, I was more impressed with her attempt to see the whole scenario from different angles before making an analysis. By quantifying the significant interactions, she could draw a p score and set the level of statistical significance at < .05, which made her findings interesting to view (as a recent Statistics student!)

The findings don’t appear to be earth shattering in terms of statistical significance, but do support the theory that there is a correlation between the stereotypes of an individual and how they relate to one’s feeling about prejudice. As many studies on racism and prejudice tend to be qualitative and filled with data coded from many interviews and observations, I appreciate the effort that was made to quantify this hypothesis.