Very few of us can avoid stereotyping others. When we're actively trying to avoid racial stereotyping, we often end up looking ridiculous. But the very fact that we can try to avoid it suggests that there's something more to racial stereotypes than a "stereotype center" in the brain. If stereotyping was completely automatic, we'd be no more able to resist stereotypes than we are able to stop seeing.
So if we can try to resist stereotyping, why doesn't resisting always work? The article I just linked points to a study showing that people -- even police officers -- are more likely to mistakenly "shoot" a black person holding a harmless object instead of a weapon, compared to a white person.
And there's been a vast array of research on implicit attitudes -- showing people are more likely to link images of black people with negative words than to link those words to white people -- even when they show little explicit racial bias. But again, the question remains: Why are these biases sometimes controllable, and sometimes automatic? A recent study by Keith Payne begins to offer some answers.
Payne gave a series of tests to 76 non-black volunteers. One test was the implicit attitude test mentioned above: viewers saw pictures of faces or words, and then had to respond in different ways: For example, to press a button if the face was white or the word was good. The key was when white faces were paired with bad words, or black faces were paired with good words: if you respond slower to good words paired with a black face, then you have an implicit bias against black faces. The next test was similar to the "shooting" task I described above. Finally, they were given a word evaluation test, where words and faces were presented simultaneously, and again, participants had to identify the words were "good" or "bad." If you're slower to identify good words presented at the same time as black faces, you have a bias.
The last test (actually given first in the experiment) was seemingly unrelated: All viewers had to do was identify a letter flashed on the screen -- either an H or a T, every time. But in the first half of the test, a circle appeared in the same location prior to the letter appearing. In the second half, viewers were told that the circle would appear on the opposite side of the screen. In order to see the letter, they would have to look away from the flashing circle.
On all three tests of stereotype bias, Payne found the usual results: non-black viewers appear to implicitly associate black faces with negative words and weapons.
But what Payne wanted to see is if there was a correlation between scores on the letter-identification test and the other tests of automatic bias. If there was, then this would suggest that the same mechanism which helps us to look away from a cue is employed in avoiding stereotyped behavior. The letter-identification task may be a better measure of our ability to control our actions (executive function), because in principle none of the participants should be any more biased than the others. So was there a relationship between the scores on this test and the others? Absolutely. There were small positive correlations between bias scores on both the weapon identification task (r=.35) and the word identification task (r=.19), and the scores on the letter-identification test.
But this experiment had some problems: First, the correlations are quite small. It seems that some other factor must be involved. And second, all the measures Payne used involve reaction times. Perhaps the test is nothing more than a measure of how quickly participants respond to computer stimuli. Payne addresses these issues in a second experiment; we'll discuss that research next week.
Payne, B.K. (2005). Conceptualizing control in social cognition: How executive functioning modulates the functioning of automatic stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology, 89(4), 488-503.
- Log in to post comments
There is nothing wrong with a stereotype, or a generality to use less loaded language, as long as it is generally true. It's nothing more than recognizing a mean difference in a trait between groups, and as long as that is not interpreted to mean some absolute difference between memebers of the groups. IOW, it may be true that the fastest men in the world are black, but that does not mean all blacks are faster than all whites. And for the record I believe 99% of the differences we speak of between races have their sources in sociology and not in biology. But that doesn't make their effects less real, or the people who recognize them less reasonable than those that don't.
A stereotype is just a proxy we are all forced to use because we don't have the resources to get to know, on a personal level, every person with whom we deal. We have to make decisions based on imperfect information, and that sometimes involves group traits. I suspect this is why in many traditions there is a moral imperative to maintain the order of one's group. It serves the group well to maintan a positive stereotype.
A stereotype can be useful to the person doing the stereotyping, and be unhelpful to the person being stereotyped at the same time. Especially if you're the black man being shot at.
I agree. I went from long hair, a beard, and middle class clothing to short hair, no facial hair, and a suit, and it was amazing (not really) how less frequently I was the one "randomly" chosen to be wanded in the airports. Of course I hadn't changed as a person. But what are people supposed to do? Ignore reality because it happens to be a problem (and sometimes a serious one) for those of us who buck the trends?
I once frightened a woman by accident walking about 20 yards behind her in a deserted area of town at night. My path happened to coincide with hers, but from her point of view, I'm sure it seemed that I was following her. I, being deep in thought, didn't realize what was happening until she stopped and looked pointedly at me, at which point the light went on and I waved at her as nonthreateningly as I could and stood still until she was out of site.
What was I to expect of her? I'm pretty sure she would not have acted that way were I another woman. Should I have lectured her about her unfair bias against me? "Just because some men are rapists and muggers doesn't mean you should have judged me that way" I could have said. Doesn't that seem silly? Facts are facts: all she knew was a man was behind her she didn't know, and that made her chances of an ill fate far higher than if a woman was behind her. She acted rationally, even though she was mistaken, and I suffered (though granted, very little in this case) through no fault of my own. That's life.
"people are more likely" - or white people? Or nonblack people?
The research you have linked seems to be mostly on the attitudes of white (or anyway, nonblack, or mostly nonblack, whatever exactly was meant by that) people.
Yes, I'm pointing out that you used "people" to mean "white people"; but I am also curious to know if there has been any similar research on the stereotypes of other racial groups. Granted, white racism has a much more pernicious effect in our society given where the economic power mostly lies. Still, it would be interesting to know for example if, or to what extent, black people have the tendency indicated in the paragraph above. Are black police less likely to open fire on a black man with an object in his hand? And so on. Just wondering.
The implicit attitude test has been given to black populations, and in many cases, the results are the same as for white people. I don't know of any research in the case of the "shooting" study, however, so I can't say whether black people are more likely to "shoot" at unarmed black suspects compared to unarmed white suspects.
But this experiment had some problems: First, the correlations are quite small. It seems that some other factor must be involved.
Of course, to explain that other factor, it would very helpful if we first knew things like how frequently black vs. white suspects are not responsive to police commands or, in other ways, differ in their exchanges with police.
Blacks (and Hispanics) have substantially higher crime rates than whites. Police who work in areas with a significant percentage of such minorities must learn something from being constantly witness to those differences in frequency of criminality even if what is learned is neither something consciously picked up on or positive perceptually. If whites and blacks are equally difficult with the police (which may not even be the case), the mere exposure to a disproportionate percentage of black suspects may well color a police officer's dealings with them.
mere exposure to a disproportionate percentage of black suspects may well color a police officer's dealings with them.
Sure, but how do you explain the fact that non-police officers respond the same way? Presumably most white people spend most of their time with other white people. So some people get their bias from exposure to black people, while others get their bias from non-exposure? Doesn't make sense to me.
Non-black volunteers? Well, does that mean white volunteers? Or does it include people of other ethnicities, who might have a different view toward black people?
In general, though, I think stereotypes probably evolved to help humans survive. You see a long, thin, black, wriggly thing (assuming you don't yet know what a snake is) bite somebody, and then he dies. Well, if you see a long, thin, red, wriggly thing the next day, would you stay away from it? It's not the same thing, but you've seen something like it before and you know it could be dangerous.
I think that we're told over and over that blacks and hispanics have higher crime rates than whites. I find the data somewhat suspect... here's why (This is based on general reading of results published in popular media, separately, not from research I conducted):
A black man is many times more likely to be pulled over than a white man with all other components equal. A black man is many times more likely to be arrested than a white man - all things being equal (ie, record, behavior, presentation)... A black man is many times more likely to be convicted on the same evidence. This would lead to a FALSE impression of many times the crime rate...
Now, of course, we have to take into account things like the fact that police are called for violent assaults more frequently in black neighborhoods. As was previously stated, though, I think these differences are sociological rather than biological in any way.
I think it's well enough established that automatic stereotyping exists. And, needless to say, the existence of automatic stereotyping means that there is virtually no limit to what we will stereotype. This points out a fault in our approach to stoping such behaviors.
Essentially, our society takes note of a denigrated class and then tries to teach that the class is worthy of respect. But such an approach is never ending. Blacks, Whites, Men, Women, Jews, Christians, Northerners, Southerners. The list is never ending and, as we know, will be automatically populated.
What needs to happen is for people to "accept" that they stereotype, learn to recognize the consequences of stereotyping and learn to counter it in all spheres.
I think it's well enough established that automatic stereotyping exists. And, needless to say, the existence of automatic stereotyping means that there is virtually no limit to what we will stereotype.
The human brain is simply unequipped to deal with life as we humans now know it. In effect we individually "stereotype" most everything we experience over time, such as, say, a chair. Instead of thinking of four pieces of wood with a flat piece on top of them and another vertical piece attached to the back, we see a chair. It's a crude example, yes, but I'd imagine our brains take similar shortcuts upon seeing other people (to both positive and negative effect).
What needs to happen is for people to "accept" that they stereotype, learn to recognize the consequences of stereotyping and learn to counter it in all spheres.
Exactly. Hopefully we get to a point where widespread cultural cohesion can be more innate rather than conscious. The gears are in motion, but I still don't see that happening for a few generations at minimum, though.