Perspective taking and member-to-group

EJSP SHORT PAPER

Perspective taking and member-to-group generalization of implicit racial attitudes: The role of target prototypicality Andrew R. Todd & Austin J. Simpson Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa, USA

Correspondence Andrew Todd, Department of Psychological and Brain Sciences, E11 Seashore Hall, University of Iowa, Iowa City, Iowa 52242, USA. E-mail: [email protected] Received: 6 January 2016 Accepted: 16 March 2016 http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2204 Keywords: implicit attitudes, intersectionality, intergroup bias, perspective taking, prejudice

Abstract Actively considering an individual outgroup member’s thoughts, feelings, and other subjective experiences – perspective taking – can improve attitudes toward that person’s group. Here, we tested whether such member-to-group generalization of implicit racial attitudes is more likely when perspectivetaking targets are viewed as prototypical of their racial group. Results supported a gendered-race-prototype hypothesis: The positive effect of perspective taking on implicit attitudes toward Black people and Asian people, respectively, was stronger when the perspective-taking target was a Black man or Asian woman (gender–race prototypical) versus a Black woman or Asian man (gender–race nonprototypical). These findings identify a boundary condition under which perspective taking may not improve intergroup attitudes and add to a growing literature on social cognition at the intersection of multiple social categories.

Actively entertaining other people’s mental states (e.g., their thoughts, feelings, and other subjective experiences) – often termed perspective taking – is crucial for managing most aspects of social life. Abundant social psychological research has documented the pro-social gains accrued from perspective taking (Batson, 2011). Though inherently an interpersonal activity, perspective taking also produces positive intergroup outcomes (Todd & Galinsky, 2014). For instance, numerous studies have found that thoughtfully considering an individual outgroup member’s thoughts and feelings improves implicit and explicit attitudes toward that person’s group as a whole (e.g., Batson, Chang, Orr, & Rowland, 2002; Dovidio et al., 2004; Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson, & Galinsky, 2011; Todd & Burgmer, 2013; Vescio, Sechrist, & Paolucci, 2003). Despite the robustness of this member-to-group attitude generalization following perspective taking, little is known about the conditions under which this generalization is likely to occur or about factors that might impede it. We aimed to address these questions. Theory and research on intergroup attitude generalization suggest that attitudes toward individual outgroup members are likely to generalize to the group as a whole insofar as those individuals are viewed as typical of their group (e.g., Brown & Hewstone, 2005; Pettigrew, 1998). Otherwise, group members may be viewed as exceptional instances, which commonly results in subtyping instead of generalization (Hewstone, 1994). This proposition regarding the importance of group member typicality has received substantial empirical support from studies of attitude

change following intergroup contact (Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). For instance, one study found that positive contact with a prototypical outgroup member improved intergroup attitudes, whereas equally positive contact with a nonprototypical outgroup member left intergroup attitudes virtually unchanged (Wilder, 1984). Extending these findings to the current work, we propose that the positive effects of perspective taking on intergroup attitudes will be stronger when targets are prototypical versus nonprototypical group members (Batson et al., 1997). We investigated whether target gender serves as a prototypicality cue that affects the likelihood of member-to-group generalization of racial attitudes following perspective taking. A first hypothesis is rooted in research on androcentrism, the tendency to view men as prototypical exemplars and women as nonprototypical exemplars of a given social group (Bem, 1994; PurdieVaughns & Eibach, 2008). Evidence for androcentrism in intergroup cognition and judgment comes from studies showing that national and racial stereotypes are more closely tied to stereotypes of the men in those groups than to stereotypes of the women in those groups (e.g., Eagly & Kite, 1987; Ghavami & Peplau, 2013). Accordingly, the male-prototype hypothesis predicts stronger member-to-group attitude generalization following perspective taking, relative to control, if the individual target person is a man than if the target person is a woman. Other evidence challenges the idea that androcentrism drives prototypicality judgments for all racial

European Journal of Social Psychology 00 (2016) 00–00 Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Perspective taking and prototypicality

Andrew R. Todd and Austin J. Simpson

groups. A growing literature has found that racial groups differ in how strongly they are associated with particular genders, with results from multiple studies linking Black people with masculinity and Asian people with femininity (e.g., Carpinella, Chen, Hamilton, & Johnson, 2015; Galinsky, Hall, & Cuddy, 2013; Hall, Galinsky, & Phillips, 2015; Johnson, Freeman, & Pauker, 2012; Schug, Alt, Lu, & Fay, in press; Wilkins, Chan, & Kaiser, 2011). Consequently, Black men and Asian women tend to be viewed as more prototypical members of their respective racial categories than do Black women and Asian men (Schug, Alt, & Klauer, 2015). The gendered-race-prototype hypothesis, therefore, predicts stronger member-to-group attitude generalization in cases of gender–race “congruity” than in cases of gender–race “incongruity.” That is, relative to a control condition, perspective taking should produce more positive evaluations of Black people and Asian people, respectively, if the individual target person is a Black man or Asian woman than if the target person is a Black woman or Asian man. We tested these competing hypotheses in the current research by examining member-to-group generalization of implicit racial attitudes following perspective taking with individual targets who varied in race and gender. We focused on implicit attitudes here for several reasons. First, contemporary expressions of intergroup bias are frequently covert (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004), and measures of implicit evaluative associations nicely capture these subtle, often unintentional intergroup reactions and predict meaningful downstream behaviors (Cameron, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Payne, 2005; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009). Additionally, although empirical attention has been devoted to understanding member-to-group generalization of explicit attitudes and beliefs (e.g., Deegan, Hehman, Gaertner, & Dovidio, 2015; Paolini, Crisp, & McIntyre, 2009) and member-to-member generalization of implicit attitudes (e.g., Gawronski & Quinn, 2013; Ranganath & Nosek, 2008), little work has examined member-to-group generalization of implicit attitudes. Experiment Overview In this experiment, the participants first composed an essay about a day in the life of a racial outgroup member either while adopting the person’s perspective or while adopting an objective focus. This procedural priming paradigm (Smith, 1994) has been used extensively in research investigating the effects of perspective taking on intergroup judgment and behavior (e.g., Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000; Skorinko & Sinclair, 2013; Tarrant, Calitri, & Weston, 2012; Todd, Bodenhausen, & Galinsky, 2012; Todd et al., 2011; Todd & Burgmer, 2013; Wang, Tai, Ku, & Galinsky, 2014). Depending on condition, the specific target person was a Black man, a Black woman, an Asian man, or an Asian woman. Afterward, the participants completed an evaluative priming task (Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995) as a measure of implicit racial attitudes.

Evaluative responses as assessed by evaluative priming tasks can be considered “implicit” or “automatic” in that they occur rapidly and do not require a conscious intention to evaluate the attitude object (De Houwer, Teige-Mocigemba, Spruyt, & Moors, 2009). We used a variant of the evaluative priming task (Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 2001) wherein subliminally presented group labels (rather than faces) served as primes because faces contain gender information, and our focal interest was in assessing implicit attitudes toward the racial categories in question without making gender salient during that assessment. We determined our target sample size in this experiment by consulting prior work on perspective taking and implicit intergroup attitudes (Shih, Stotzer, & Gutiérrez, 2013; Todd et al., 2011; Todd & Burgmer, 2013), settling on a target number of about 35 participants per cell. Data were collected until the end of the school year, which allowed us to surpass our target number prior to data exclusions. We report all data exclusions, manipulations, and measures.

Method Participants and Design Native English-speaking White undergraduates from a university in the Midwestern United States (N = 295) participated for course credit. They were randomly assigned to experimental condition in a 2 (target race: Black, Asian) × 2 (target gender: male, female) × 2 (instructions: perspective taking, objective focus) between-subject design. We decided a priori to exclude data from participants with excessive errors (>30% of trials; Greenwald, Nosek, & Banaji, 2003) or extreme scores (>2.5 SDs from the grand mean; Todd & Burgmer, 2013) on the evaluative priming task. This resulted in excluding data from nine participants (3% of the total sample); retaining their data left the results unchanged. Computer malfunctions resulted in substantial data loss for 11 additional participants. Together, these exclusions, which were distributed uniformly across conditions, left a final sample of 275 participants (170 women, 105 men1; Mage = 19.41, SD = 1.57; range: 18 to 27).

Procedure On arrival at the lab, the participants were led to a cubicle where they completed several ostensibly unrelated experimental tasks. All tasks were administered via computer.

1

Male and female participants were distributed proportionally across the eight experimental conditions. A preliminary analysis revealed no significant main effects or interactions involving participant gender on pro-White bias.



Perspective-taking manipulation. The participants first composed a short narrative essay about an unknown target person. To emphasize the seemingly random selection of the target, we presented the participants with eight boxes, each of which purportedly corresponded to a specific person. After selecting a box, the participants saw a photo of the person: a Black man, a Black woman, an Asian man, or an Asian woman.2 We used three photos of each combination of race and gender taken from the MR2 face database (Strohminger et al., 2016). The participants were asked to spend about 5 min describing a typical day in the person’s life. The participants in the perspective-taking condition were also asked to take the person’s perspective—to visualize clearly and vividly what s/he might be thinking, feeling, and experiencing. The participants in the objective-focus condition were asked to adopt an objective focus—to not get caught up in what s/he might be thinking and feeling but to write as if they were a casual observer (for a similar procedure and instructions, refer to Todd et al., 2011; Todd & Burgmer, 2013). Evaluative priming task. Next, the participants completed an evaluative priming task assessing implicit evaluations of Black people or Asian people, relative to White people (Wittenbrink et al., 2001). Each trial began with a fixation cross for 1000 ms, followed by a prime for 15 ms. The primes comprised an outgroup category label (“BLACK” or “ASIAN”, depending on condition), an ingroup category label (“WHITE”), and a neutral label (“XXXXX”). The prime was replaced by a masking stimulus (“XXXXX”) for 250 ms, after which a positive (e.g., love, fun, health) or negative target word (e.g., stress, grief, virus) appeared for 250 ms. The participants’ focal task was to categorize the target words as positive or negative by pressing one of two response keys as quickly and accurately as possible. Each of the 24 target words (12 positive, 12 negative; taken from Gawronski, Deutsch, Mbirkou, Seibt, & Strack, 2008) appeared twice following each of the three primes, for a total of 144 randomly ordered experimental trials. Six practice trials preceded the experimental trials. Incorrect responses triggered an “Error!” message, which remained on screen until the participants corrected their response. Manipulation check. Finally, the participants indicated the extent to which they (i) imagined the person’s thoughts and feelings and (ii) were objective and detached during the essay task (1 = not at all, 7 = very much).

2 The Asian men and women depicted in the photos were of East Asian ancestry.


Results Manipulation check. The participants in the perspective-taking condition (M = 5.11, SD = 1.31) reported imagining the person’s thoughts and feelings more than the objective-focus participants did (M = 4.22, SD = 1.67), t(273) = 4.90, p < .001, d = 0.59. Conversely, the participants in the objective-focus condition (M = 5.29, SD = 1.31) reported being more objective and detached than the perspective takers did (M = 4.60, SD = 1.42), t(273) = 4.21, p < .001, d = 0.51. Implicit racial attitudes. Prior to analysis, we excluded trials with errors (5.7%) and trials with response times (RTs) 1000 ms (5.4%) as outliers (Gawronski et al., 2008; Gawronski & Quinn, 2013). Following conventional scoring recommendations for sequential priming tasks (Wentura & Degner, 2010), we created an index of racial bias. This scoring procedure entailed calculating the difference in mean RTs for positive words following Black/Asian primes versus White primes (Black/Asian-positive trials White-positive trials) plus the difference in mean RTs for negative words following White primes versus Black/Asian primes (White-negative trials Black/Asian-negative trials). Higher scores on this index reflect a stronger implicit preference for White people relative to Black/Asian people (i.e., pro-White bias). A 2 (target race) × 2 (target gender) × 2 (instructions) ANOVA on these scores revealed that, overall, perspective takers (M = 3.67 ms, SD = 38.09) displayed significantly less pro-White bias than did the objective-focus participants (M = 7.47 ms, SD = 36.99), F(1, 267) = 5.96, p = .015, d = 0.30. A pair of one-sample t-tests further revealed that the objective-focus participants displayed significant proWhite bias, t(139) = 2.39, p = .018, d = 0.29, whereas the perspective takers displayed a nonsignificant tendency for pro-outgroup bias, t(134) = 1.12, p = .265, d = 0.14. Furthermore, neither the target gender main effect (F < 1), the target race main effect (F < 1), nor the target gender × target race interaction, F(1, 267) = 2.34, p = .128, η2p = 0.01, was significant. Thus, collapsing across instruction condition, the individual target person that the participants wrote about seemed to have little effect on pro-White bias.

Contrary to the male-prototype hypothesis, moreover, target gender did not moderate the effect of perspective taking on pro-White bias (target gender × instructions interaction: F < 1). In line with the gendered-race-prototype hypothesis, however, the three-way interaction was significant, F(1, 267) = 5.48, p = .020, η2p = 0.02. Table 1 displays the means and effect sizes for the effect of perspective taking on pro-White bias for each combination of target race and gender. To specify the three-way interaction in terms of the gendered-race-prototype hypothesis, we examined the effect of perspective taking on pro-White bias,




Table 1. Mean pro-White bias scores by target race, target gender, and instructions Instructions Target race– gender Black Male Female Asian Male Female

Perspective taking N

M

37 33 32 34

Objective focus

SD

N

M

SD

d

8.19 3.37

37.93 40.65

35 37

19.46 2.57

32.10 37.13

0.80 0.16

0.02 2.47

39.82 35.09

33 34

5.00 12.94

35.65 39.45

0.14 0.42

Note: Higher scores reflect greater pro-White bias. Cohen’s d reflects the standardized mean difference between the perspective-taking and objective-focus conditions for each target race–gender combination.

separately for the Black man and Asian woman target conditions combined (i.e., gender–race “congruity”) and for the Black woman and Asian man target conditions combined (i.e., gender–race “incongruity”). When the essay target was a Black man or an Asian woman, the perspective takers displayed less pro-White bias than did the objective-focus participants, t(271) = 3.45, p < .001, d = 0.61. When the essay target was a Black woman or Asian man, however, pro-White bias was comparable for perspective takers and objectivefocus participants (t < 1, d = 0.02).

Discussion This experiment investigated the role of target gender as a cue to prototypicality in member-to-group attitude generalization following perspective taking. Overall, we found that perspective taking reduced implicit racial bias, replicating prior research (Todd et al., 2011; Todd & Burgmer, 2013). We extend this prior work, which had used implicit association tests (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) and the affect misattribution procedure (Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005) as measures of implicit intergroup attitudes, by demonstrating comparable effects using an evaluative priming task with subliminal presentations of racial group labels as primes (Wittenbrink et al., 2001). More importantly, we found that the effect of perspective taking on racial attitudes depended on the prototypicality of the specific target person, and our results supported the gendered-race-prototype hypothesis: Actively considering the thoughts and feelings of a prototypical group member (i.e., Black man or Asian woman) improved implicit racial attitudes more than did thinking about this person in an objective and detached manner; however, this positive effect of perspective taking disappeared when the target person was a nonprototypical group member (i.e., Black woman or Asian man). These results contribute to a growing literature on intersectional invisibility (Purdie-Vaughns & Eibach,

2008), according to which certain combinations of race and gender are viewed as nontypical, thus rendering people within those category combinations “socially invisible.” Black women and Asian men may be particularly susceptible to such invisibility (Sesko & Biernat, 2010; Schug et al., 2015), which can leave them vulnerable to unique, sometimes passive, forms of discrimination (e.g., being overlooked for particular jobs because of “lack of fit”: Hall et al., 2015; underrepresentation in mass media depictions: Schug et al., in press). Our findings suggest another way in which such discrimination may manifest: The intergroup benefits that might otherwise accrue for Black people and Asian people as a group when majority group members establish a sense of interpersonal connection with an individual group member (Todd & Galinsky, 2014) are unlikely to generalize to the group as a whole if that individual group member is a Black woman or an Asian man (also refer to Stathi, Crisp, & Hogg, 2011). Our results also complement findings from several recent studies documenting qualifications on the benefits of intergroup perspective taking (Todd & Galinsky, 2014; Vorauer, 2013). Whereas prior research has identified perceiver characteristics (e.g., self-esteem: Galinsky & Ku, 2004; Todd & Burgmer, 2013; ingroup identification: Tarrant et al., 2012) and contextual factors (e.g., evaluation potential: Vorauer, Martens, & Sasaki, 2009; Vorauer & Sasaki, 2009; history of intergroup conflict: Bruneau & Saxe, 2012) that moderate the effectiveness of perspective taking, here, we found that the characteristics of targets themselves (i.e., prototypicality) may also affect the likelihood that perspective taking produces positive intergroup outcomes. At first blush, our results may appear at odds with those reported in several prior studies. One study, for instance, found that perspective taking with “typical” and “nontypical” Black targets produced comparable positive effects on explicit racial attitudes (Vescio et al., 2003). One possible explanation for this apparent discrepancy is that their “nontypical” Black male target (i.e., Jamal Johnson, a first-generation college student from Brooklyn; refer to p. 461) may have been viewed as sufficiently typical to afford generalization to Black people as a group. More recently, another study found that the otherwise positive effect of perspective taking on explicit attitudes toward overweight people was eliminated when the target was a “typical” group member (Skorinko & Sinclair, 2013). It is worth noting that their “typical” overweight target was depicted in an arguably negative and stereotype-consistent manner (i.e., an unabashed couch potato; refer to p. 15). Thus, their null finding might reflect the negligible effect of perspective taking when targets’ behaviors clearly conform to negative group stereotypes. Future research should systematically test the effects of perspective taking when targets are depicted as highly stereotypical, as in Skorinko and Sinclair (2013), versus merely prototypical, as in our research.



Limitations and Future Research Directions We briefly acknowledge several limitations of the current research, each of which suggests potential directions for future research. First, we used gender as an indirect cue signaling racial group prototypicality and advanced two competing hypotheses for how target gender would interact with target race and perspective taking to affect implicit racial attitudes. Although these hypotheses were grounded in prior research on the role of gender in perceived racial prototypicality (e.g., Eagly & Kite, 1987; Johnson et al., 2012), future research using a more direct manipulation of target prototypicality would provide a more direct causal test of the general hypothesis that target prototypicality per se moderates member-to-group attitude generalization following perspective taking. Second, our focal interest was in the effect of perspective taking on implicit attitudes toward the racial categories Black and Asian relative to the category White. Thus, following Wittenbrink et al. (2001), we used category labels rather than faces as primes in our evaluative priming task. Unlike faces, the category labels themselves contain no direct information about gender. Nevertheless, it is possible that the gender of the essay target may have indirectly rendered particular gender information more accessible as the participants were processing the subliminal category labels. In other words, after writing about a Black man, male gender may have been more accessible when processing the category label “BLACK”. Although our data cannot conclusively rule out this possibility, the nonsignificant effects involving target gender when collapsing across instruction condition offer suggestive evidence that the specific target person the participants wrote about did not meaningfully alter pro-White bias. By using face primes instead of category labels, future research might further explore implicit attitude change toward the group as a whole by examining its generalizability to both male and female group members (e.g., that taking a Black man’s perspective improves implicit attitudes both toward other Black men and toward Black women). A third, related limitation stemming from our focal interest in implicit attitudes toward a specific racial outgroup (Black people or Asian people) relative to the participants’ racial ingroup (White people) is that the participants in the different target-race conditions completed different evaluative priming tasks. Future research could address this limitation by having all participants complete a single evaluative priming task in which both racial outgroup categories (along with the racial ingroup category) serve as primes. The current findings set the stage for several other future research directions. First, we found that adopting the perspective of a nonprototypical category member did not produce changes in implicit attitudes toward the superordinate racial category (i.e., Black people and Asian people in general). It is possible, however, that adopting the perspective of a Black woman or an Asian


man does improve attitudes toward the specific subgroups of Black women and Asian men, respectively. Future research should examine this possibility. Second, we focused on member-to-group attitude generalization. A related question concerns whether perspective-taking-induced changes in intergroup attitudes transfer to other outgroups (i.e., group-togroup generalization). Although such secondary transfer effects following perspective taking have typically proven elusive (e.g., Todd & Burgmer, 2013; Vescio et al., 2003), future research could investigate whether transfer effects are more likely to emerge for outgroups that are similar to the target outgroup in terms of the stereotypes they commonly elicit (e.g., Black people and Arab people; Fiske, Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), as has been suggested by intergroup contact researchers (e.g., Pettigrew, 2009; Tausch et al., 2010). Third, we focused on gender as a potential cue that signals prototypicality about racial groups. Some research suggests that, like race, mental illness may also be gendered (e.g., Boysen, Ebersole, Casner, & Coston, 2014; Wirth & Bodenhausen, 2009). Future research could test whether perspective taking is less likely to improve attitudes toward people with mental illness if there is “incongruency” between the gender of the individual target person and the gendered associations with the particular mental illness (e.g., a man with anorexia nervosa or a woman with alcohol dependence). Fourth, it is unclear from both the current findings and prior research whether target gender moderates perspective-taking effects with target groups outside the domain of race. Indeed, prior studies investigating the effects of perspective taking on reactions toward nonracial target groups, including groups that may not have strong gendered associations (e.g., older adults: Todd & Burgmer, 2013; students at rival universities: Tarrant et al., 2012), have used male target persons almost exclusively (but refer to Clore & Jeffery, 1972, for evidence that taking a physically disabled woman’s perspective improved explicit attitudes toward physically disabled people as a group). Thus, a more complete picture of the role of target gender in understanding intergroup perspective-taking effects will require additional studies testing the interactive effects of target gender and perspective taking on reactions toward various social groups. Finally, like most prior gendered-races research that has found associations between Asian people and femininity (e.g., Carpinella et al., 2015; Hall et al., 2015; Johnson et al., 2012; Schug et al., 2015), we focused on North American perceivers’ reactions to targets of East Asian ancestry. It is possible, however, that outside a North American setting (e.g., in Europe), the category label “Asian” brings to mind a difference reference group (e.g., South Asians). Future research should explore whether the gendered-race prototype operates differently for East Asian and South Asian targets and among perceivers with different cultural backgrounds.




Conclusion In sum, we found that target prototypicality moderated the effect of perspective taking on implicit racial attitudes: Member-to-group generalization of perspective-takinginduced positivity was quite pronounced when targets were prototypical of their racial group but not when targets were nonprototypical group members. This research enhances our understanding about the conditions under which perspective taking may be most and least effective as a strategy for navigating intergroup relations. More generally, this work contributes to an emerging literature on social cognition at the intersection of race, gender, and other social categories (Johnson & Carpinella, 2012; Kang & Bodenhausen, 2015).

Acknowledgements The authors thank Chelsea Budd, Melanie Martin, Hannah Miles, Hope Walgamuth, Julia Wood, and Ji Xia for research assistance, and Galen Bodenhausen, Rebecca Neel, and Paul Windschitl for helpful comments and discussion. This research was facilitated by National Science Foundation (NSF) grant BCS1523731 awarded to ART. The authors declare that there are no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References Batson, C. D. (2011). Altruism in humans. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. Batson, C. D., Chang, J., Orr, R., & Rowland, J. (2002). Empathy, attitudes, and action: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group motivate one to help the group? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1656–1666. Batson, C. D., Polycarpou, M. P., Harmon-Jones, E., Imhoff, H. J., Mitchener, E. C., Bednar, L. L., et al. (1997). Empathy and attitudes: Can feeling for a member of a stigmatized group improve feelings toward the group? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 105–118. Bem, S. L. (1994). The lenses of gender: Transforming the debate on sexual inequality. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press. Boysen, G., Ebersole, A., Casner, R., & Coston, N. (2014). Gendered mental disorders: Masculine and feminine stereotypes about mental disorders and their relation to stigma. The Journal of Social Psychology, 154, 546–565. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. Brown, R., & Hewstone, M. (2005). An integrative theory of intergroup contact. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 255–343. Bruneau, E. G., & Saxe, R. (2012). The power of being heard: The benefits of ’perspective-giving’ in the context of intergroup conflict. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 855–866. Carpinella, C. M., Chen, J. M., Hamilton, D. L., & Johnson, K. L. (2015). Gendered facial cues influence race categorizations. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 405–419.

Clore, G. L., & Jeffery, K. M. (1972). Emotional role playing, attitude change, and attraction toward a disabled person. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 23, 105–111. Deegan, M. P., Hehman, E., Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (2015). Positive expectations encourage generalization from a positive intergroup interaction to outgroup attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 52–65. De Houwer, J., Teige-Mocigemba, S., Spruyt, A., & Moors, A. (2009). Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. Psychological Bulletin, 135, 347–368. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1–52. Dovidio, J. F., ten Vergert, M., Stewart, T. L., Gaertner, S. L., Johnson, J. D., Esses, V. M., et al. (2004). Perspective and prejudice: Antecedents and mediating mechanisms. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 1537–1549. Eagly, A. H., & Kite, M. E. (1987). Are stereotypes of nationalities applied to both women and men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 53, 451–462. Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., & Williams, C. J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013–1027. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902. Galinsky, A. D., Hall, E. V., & Cuddy, A. J. (2013). Gendered races: Implications for interracial marriage, leadership selection, and athletic participation. Psychological Science, 24, 498–506. Galinsky, A. D., & Ku, G. (2004). The effects of perspectivetaking on prejudice: The moderating role of selfevaluation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 594–604. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Perspectivetaking: Decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 708–724. Gawronski, B., Deutsch, R., Mbirkou, S., Seibt, B., & Strack, F. (2008). When “just say no” is not enough: Affirmation versus negation training and the reduction of automatic stereotype activation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 370–377. Gawronski, B., & Quinn, K. A. (2013). Guilty by mere similarity: Assimilative effects of facial resemblance on automatic evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 120–125. Ghavami, N., & Peplau, L. A. (2013). An intersectional analysis of gender and ethnic stereotypes: Testing three hypotheses. Psychology of Women Quarterly, 37, 113–127. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit



Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41. Hall, E. V., Galinsky, A. D., & Phillips, K. W. (2015). Gender profiling: A gendered race perspective on person–position fit. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 853–868. Hewstone, M. (1994). Revision and change of stereotypic beliefs: In search of the elusive subtyping model. European Review of Social Psychology, 5, 69–109. Johnson, K. L., & Carpinella, C. (2012). Social categorization at the crossroads: Mechanisms by which intersecting social categories bias social perception. In J. Forgas, K. Fiedler, & C. Sedikides (Eds.), Social thinking and interpersonal behavior: Proceedings of the 14th Sydney Symposium of Social Psychology (pp. 201–220). New York: Psychology Press. Johnson, K. L., Freeman, J. B., & Pauker, K. (2012). Race is gendered: How covarying phenotypes and stereotypes bias sex categorization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 102, 116–131. Kang, S. K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2015). Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: Challenges and opportunities. Annual Review of Psychology, 66, 547–574. Paolini, S., Crisp, R. J., & McIntyre, K. (2009). Accountability moderates member-to-group generalization: Testing a dual process model of stereotype change. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 676–685. Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes: Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 277–293. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65–85. Pettigrew, T. F. (2009). Secondary transfer effect of contact: Do intergroup contact effects spread to noncontacted outgroups? Social Psychology, 40, 55–65. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751–783. Purdie-Vaughns, V., & Eibach, R. P. (2008). Intersectional invisibility: The distinctive advantages and disadvantages of multiple subordinate-group identities. Sex Roles, 59, 377–391. Ranganath, K. A., & Nosek, B. A. (2008). Implicit attitude generalization occurs immediately; explicit attitude generalization takes time. Psychological Science, 19, 249–254. Schug, J., Alt, N. P., & Klauer, K. C. (2015). Gendered race prototypes: Evidence for the non-prototypicality of Asian men and Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 56, 121–125. Schug, J., Alt, N. P., Lu, P. S., & Fay, J. L. (in press). Gendered race in mass media: Invisibility of Asian men and Black women in popular magazines. Psychology of Popular Media Culture. Sesko, A. K., & Biernat, M. (2010). Prototypes of race and gender: The invisibility of Black women. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 356–360. Shih, M. J., Stotzer, R., & Gutiérrez, A. S. (2013). Perspectivetaking and empathy: Generalizing the reduction of group bias towards Asian Americans to general outgroups. Asian American Journal of Psychology, 4, 79–83.


Skorinko, J. L., & Sinclair, S. A. (2013). Perspective taking can increase stereotyping: The role of apparent stereotype confirmation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 49, 10–18. Smith, E. R. (1994). Procedural knowledge and processing strategies in social cognition. In R. S. Wyer, & T. K. Srull (Eds.), Handbook of social cognition (pp. 99–152). Hillsdale NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum Associates, Inc.. Stathi, S., Crisp, R. J., & Hogg, M. A. (2011). Imagining intergroup contact enables member-to-group generalization. Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, and Practice, 15, 275–284. Strohminger, N., Gray, K., Chituc, V., Heffner, J., Schein, C., & Heagins, T. B. (2016). The MR2: A multi-racial, megaresolution database of facial stimuli. Behavior Research Methods. Tarrant, M., Calitri, R., & Weston, D. (2012). Social identification structures the effects of perspective taking. Psychological Science, 23, 973–978. Tausch, N., Hewstone, M., Kenworthy, J. B., Psaltis, C., Schmid, K., Popan, J. R., et al. (2010). Secondary transfer effects of intergroup contact: Alternative accounts and underlying processes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 99, 282–302. Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Galinsky, A. D. (2012). Perspective taking combats the denial of intergroup discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 738–745. Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A., & Galinsky, A. D. (2011). Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100, 1027–1042. Todd, A. R., & Burgmer, P. (2013). Perspective taking and automatic intergroup evaluation change: Testing an associative self-anchoring account. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 104, 786–802. Todd, A. R., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective-taking as a strategy for improving intergroup relations: Evidence, mechanisms, and qualifications. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 8, 374–387. Vescio, T. K., Sechrist, G. B., & Paolucci, M. P. (2003). Perspective taking and prejudice reduction: The mediational role of empathy arousal and situational attributions. European Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 455–472. Vorauer, J. D. (2013). The case for and against perspectivetaking. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 48, 59–115. Vorauer, J. D., Martens, V., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). When trying to understand detracts from trying to behave: Effects of perspective taking in intergroup interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 96, 811–827. Vorauer, J. D., & Sasaki, S. J. (2009). Helpful only in the abstract? Ironic effects of empathy in intergroup interaction. Psychological Science, 20, 191–197. Wang, C. S., Tai, K., Ku, G., & Galinsky, A. D. (2014). Perspective-taking increases willingness to engage in intergroup contact. PLoS ONE, 9, e85681. Wentura, D., & Degner, J. (2010). A practical guide to sequential priming and related tasks. In B. Gawronski, & B. K. Payne (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Theory, measurement, and applications (pp. 95–116). New York, NY: Guilford.




Wilder, D. A. (1984). Intergroup contact: The typical member and the exception to the rule. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 20, 177–194. Wilkins, C. L., Chan, J. F., & Kaiser, C. R. (2011). Racial stereotypes and interracial attraction: Phenotypic prototypicality and perceived attractiveness of Asians. Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology, 17, 427–431.

Wirth, J. H., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2009). The role of gender in mental-illness stigma: A national experiment. Psychological Science, 20, 169–173. Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2001). Evaluative versus conceptual judgments in automatic stereotyping and prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 244–252.
