Introduction
Discriminatory attitudes and actions are frequently prompted by entrenched social constructions known as stereotypes, which impact how people view other groups. Although they were evolved to help us absorb information more efficiently, these mental shortcuts can also contribute to prejudice and discrimination by reinforcing detrimental prejudices. Stereotypes affect more than just rational thought; they permeate emotional responses and determine how we respond. Discrimination arises as a concrete result of stereotypes activating and guiding people’s decision-making processes, as Amodio and Devine (2006) explain. A growing number of studies indicate that people may regulate and lessen the impact of preconceptions, even though stereotyping is an automatic process. In this article, we will examine many theories and facts from the field of psychology that explain how stereotypes are formed and how individuals may take action to prevent themselves from being automatically stereotyped. Despite stereotyping’s ubiquitous automaticity, this article contends that people may manage their judgments and actions by using certain cognitive processes and tactics.
Stereotype Activation and Application
There are two separate but related steps in the stereotyping process: activation and application. Stigma activation is the initial step, and it entails bringing up previously held prejudices about a certain social group from memory. As people readily rely upon cultural narratives and social standards to make sense of their environment, this activation happens naturally and is often unconscious, as per Li et al. (2020). The activation phase lays the groundwork for how stereotypes are later used in different assessments and actions. Phase two begins with the activation of stereotypes and continues with their application. In this case, deciding how to use the activated stereotypes in making decisions or directing actions is the key. Individuals now have some agency in deciding whether to conform to the active stereotype or fight it. Cognitive resources, motivation, and environmental signals are among the variables that influence whether stereotypes are used or not. In his work on stereotype activation, Amodio (2006) draws attention to the intricate interplay between automatic and regulated cognitive systems. Society norms and cultural conditioning can cause people to respond and perceive based on stereotypes unconsciously. On the other hand, when preconceptions are applied, people are able to make deliberate decisions about which stereotypes to apply, which in turn causes them to act and judge differently. It is critical to be aware of the possible outcomes of depending on preconceived notions. In order to overcome stereotypes, Baxter (2018) stresses the significance of active cognitive processes that combat biased attitudes and discriminatory actions.
Reactive Control Mechanisms
Dissociation model
One of the most important ways people may fight against the automatic reinforcement of stereotypes is through reactive control mechanisms. To lessen the impact of stereotypes, people can consciously correct or dissociate themselves from them, according to the Dissociation Model (Fausett, 2022). For this model to work, there are three essential factors: the ability to recognize and respond appropriately, the desire to do so, and the presence of certain environmental factors that trigger reactive control. Recognizing a problem and wanting to fix it are the foundational elements of the Dissociation Model. People need to be aware that perpetuating stereotypes goes against their egalitarian principles and is, therefore, undesirable. According to Rosenthal and Overstreet (2016), people who do not exhibit bias find stereotypes offensive and at odds with who they see themselves as being. By encouraging people to make up for any gaps between their real and desired actions, egalitarian ideals help to reduce the influence of stereotypes. Cognitive capacity, the second component, is critical for reactive control to work. It takes mental energy to engage in the laborious processes of repair. The ability to reevaluate one’s preconceived notions by systematic and controlled processing is crucial, as Ma et al. (2018) stress. The Dissociation Model’s third dimension is concerned with the circumstances that must be met in order for reactive control to be activated. The notions of the “actual self” and the “ought self” are introduced in the self-regulatory concept of stereotype control put out by Hill et al. (2017). The ought self includes societal norms and expectations, whereas the actual self is a person’s ideas and actions. Individuals are driven to take action in order to rectify discrepancies between their real and ought selves, which is known as reactive control. By making people feel bad about their racist actions in the past, Rohmer and Louvet (2016) put this theory to the test. The findings showed that people intentionally corrected their past stereotype usage when they felt guilty about it.
Accuracy Goals
An individual’s ability to intentionally reduce the impact of stereotypes via cognitive processes that aim for correct and defensible assessments is central to the idea of accuracy objectives. Accuracy objectives include being responsible for first impressions. According to Hall et al. (2019), people are more inclined to strive for correctness when they believe their ideas, words, or deeds will be subject to criticism. Individuals are motivated to align their judgments with a goal for accuracy by the fear of potential repercussions for creating unfair or prejudiced perceptions. This component of accuracy objectives that are driven by accountability highlights the influence of external accountability on cognitive processes and represents a deliberate attempt to avoid falling into stereotypes. One aspect of accuracy goals is outcome dependency, which highlights how people rely on others to reach their objectives. People are more likely to overcome stereotype prejudice and provide an honest evaluation of their partner’s abilities when they are dependent on them to accomplish a goal (Carrillat et al., 2015). This connection exemplifies how environmental variables can shape cognitive processes.
Individuals have enhanced recognition accuracy when confronted with outcome dependence on a partner, as demonstrated by Braithwaite et al. (2016), adding credence to the efficacy of accuracy objectives. Recognizing relevant traits was subjectively more important in a task where participants were told that their performance would be dependent on their partner’s attributes and when they were expected to engage with a partner. An attempt to overcome stereotyped prejudices in order to make correct evaluations was evident in the greater attention paid to the partner’s qualities as a result of this elevated status. Increased effortful and correct processing is the third aspect of accuracy objectives, as shown by Whitehead (2017). When people want to make good decisions, they focus more mental energy on analyzing other people’s actions. This heightened cognitive effort is a defense mechanism against heuristic processing, in which people make decisions quickly and efficiently by using mental shortcuts or stereotypes.
Perspective Taking
When we speak about perspective-taking, we mean the capacity to put oneself in another person’s shoes and get an intellectual and emotional understanding of their experiences, emotions, and points of view. The two fundamental components that underpin the success of perspective-taking are empathy and self-other overlap. Perspective-taking, or empathy, is a cognitive process that involves understanding how someone else feels and being able to place oneself in their position. By developing empathy for members of other social groups, individuals may transcend the constraints imposed by assumptions, claim Sassenberg and Moskowitz (2005). Empathetic individuals are better able to connect to and understand one another, which aids in the dismantling of obstacles associated with bias and discrimination. People are strongly motivated to comprehend others with greater intricacy and empathy rather than to make simple assumptions. This is because empathy has an emotional resonance. According to Sjoberg (2016), self-other overlap is the cognitive aspect of perspective-taking, which is the process by which individuals attempt to comprehend the world from the perspectives of other social groups. To do this, one must have the ability to understand and take into account the opinions and thoughts of others they contact with, which in turn promotes a stronger sense of humanity. People may fight prejudice and foster acceptance by making an effort to remove the obstacles they place between themselves and members of stereotyped groups.
In a study conducted by Mendoza et al. (2010), it was discovered that those who were able to either repress their stereotyped ideas or put themselves in the other person’s shoes produced far fewer stereotypical essays than those in the control group. In contrast to those who attempted to repress stereotyped ideas, Priest et al. (2018) discovered that participants who actively participated in perspective-taking produced writings that were less stereotypical. This evidence points to the fact that putting oneself in another person’s shoes helps to lessen the prevalence of stereotyping and produces more complex and accurate mental models. Using an embodied perspective-taking paradigm, in which participants digitally assumed the role of an avatar with either light or dark skin, Pauker et al. (2016) further demonstrated the efficacy of perspective-taking. This novel method adds to the growing body of data suggesting that lowering one’s racial stereotypes and increasing one’s empathy for people of other races might improve one’s cognitive processes.
Proactive Control Mechanisms
Expectancies
An individual’s capacity to avoid and combat the automatic activation and deployment of stereotypes relies heavily on proactive control mechanisms. Monteith (1993) posits that expectancies enable people to actively work against stereotyping by having counter-stereotypic expectancies. The expectation that members of stereotyped groups would act in ways that run against the grain of popular perceptions about their social group is known as a counter-stereotypic expectancy. This preventative control mechanism is based on the idea that people may change their perceptions of other people by deliberately training themselves to think differently than their preconceived notions. Research by Maister et al. (2013) used a paradigm where participants were given either stereotypical or counter-stereotypical information about people from different social groups; this allowed them to see how successful counter-stereotypic predictions are. Findings demonstrated that participants’ attention and memory were influenced more by counter-stereotypic information, demonstrating the cognitive influence of expectations on these processes. As a proactive tactic, this focus on counter-stereotypic material helps to question and disprove dominant prejudices. Proactive control in the expectations framework also includes training people to disprove preconceptions. To disprove negative preconceptions, Inzlicht et al. (2012) trained participants to link positive attributes with members of stereotyped groups. The goal of the training was to help participants form more positive and accurate mental connections by retraining their natural associations to reject stereotypes. The adaptability of mental operations and the possibility of deliberate interventions to alter habitual thought patterns are highlighted by this preventative approach.
Associations
Another kind of proactive control is that associations look at the unique mental connections between ideas and social categories. To combat automatic stereotyping, Devine (1989) proposed the Stroop task and counter-stereotypic association training. As an example, the word “red” written in blue ink would prompt participants to respond with the color red, as is the case in the classic psychological paradigm known as the Stroop task. This exercise may be modified to assess the degree to which people automatically associate certain social groups with stereotyped characteristics when it comes to associations. By using counter-stereotypic association training, Fischbach et al. (2015) proved that these connections are changeable. The training involved teaching participants to link positive connotations with members of a stereotyped group, such as “Asian” and other positive adjectives. There was a considerable decrease in instinctive stereotyping, which provides more evidence that teaching people to make linkages that are counter-stereotypic can help stop prejudices in their tracks. Beeghly (2015) states that counter-stereotypic association training is successful in contexts outside of laboratories. Reducing implicit biases has been successfully achieved in real-world applications through treatments that question and change connections. More fair and impartial decisions may be made in different situations if we actively work to change people’s natural connections with social categories and stereotypes.
Chronic Goals
Chronic objectives are a proactive method that entails activating long-term goals of equality. The individual’s objectives are based on their enduring dedication to justice, tolerance, and equality. These goals serve as an underlying framework that directs cognitive processes to fight stereotyping. When egalitarian ideals are put into action, they prevent the activation of stereotypes by aligning with an individual’s dedication to justice and equality. Brauer et al. (2012) contend that chronic objectives function as a preconscious mechanism of cognitive regulation. They detect information that is pertinent to the consistently available concept of justice and suppress the activation of stereotypes. The implementation of egalitarian objectives signifies a proactive endeavor to forestall the emergence of stereotypes in their nascent phases, underscoring the significance of enduring principles and dedication in influencing cognitive processes. Baldwin et al. (2012) performed a study to investigate the influence of egalitarian objectives on stereotype activation, providing support for the usefulness of chronic egalitarian goals. Individuals who consistently maintained egalitarian objectives demonstrated quicker reaction times in identifying terms that did not conform to stereotypes, indicating that their dedication to fairness aided in suppressing stereotyped connections.
Puddifoot (2019) conducted a study to assess the role of persistent egalitarian aspirations on stereotype activation and discrimination. Subjects who were presented with positive posters advocating egalitarianism had a reduced inclination towards negative preconceptions of Arabs and a decreased overall bias in comparison to those who were exposed to posters with mixed messages. This discovery implies that persistent aspirations for equality not only influence the activation of stereotypes but also contribute to a more extensive decrease in biased attitudes. In addition, Yzerbyt (2016) conducted a study using a pronunciation task to investigate the influence of long-term egalitarian objectives on the activation of stereotypes. Individuals who have long-term goals of promoting equality showed quicker reaction times when speaking phrases that are associated with stereotypes and those that are not, suggesting their capacity to deliberately suppress stereotypical reactions. The inhibition described here operates at a preconscious level, meaning it occurs without conscious awareness. This accords with the concept that long-term objectives of equality serve as an implicit and proactive method to manage cognitive processes, influencing them without requiring conscious effort.
Implementation Intentions
Implementation intentions are a proactive approach that involves creating precise plans or intents to direct action. This mechanism is based on the assumption that individuals can create deliberate tactics, referred to as implementation intents, in order to actively oppose stereotyped thinking and behavior. Counter-stereotypical implementation intentions refer to the deliberate formation of plans to respond in a way that goes against commonly held prejudices. According to van Dijk et al. (2017), individuals may overcome automatic stereotyped responses by consciously setting precise goals to behave in a way that goes against stereotypes. This proactive approach seeks to interrupt the ingrained connections between social categories and stereotyped characteristics, promoting deliberate and impartial conduct. Distraction-inhibiting implementation intentions, which are part of this proactive control mechanism, include formulating strategies to disregard or suppress distracting inputs that might result in stereotyping. Individuals seek to reduce the influence of automatic stereotyping by setting clear intentions to shift their attention away from stimuli that may introduce prejudice. This deliberate redirection is in line with the concept that proactive control mechanisms can actively influence attentional processes and diminish the spontaneous activation of stereotypes.
In Tanjitpiyanond et al.’s (2022) study, participants were randomly allocated to various circumstances. Some participants were given counter-stereotypical implementation intents, while others received distraction-inhibiting implementation intentions. A control group was also included, which did not receive any specific approach. The findings indicated that the deliberate implementation of plans to conduct in a manner that contradicts stereotypes had a substantial impact on reducing racial prejudice. This suggests that persons who had precise intentions to behave in a way that goes against stereotypes showed more fair and unbiased assessments. Furthermore, the implementation of intents that restrict attention was similarly successful in minimizing racial prejudice. Participants who devised strategies to disregard potentially prejudiced cues exhibited a noteworthy decrease in implicit racial bias in comparison to those in the control group. This study offers empirical evidence for the practical effectiveness of implementation intents as proactive control mechanisms that actively change cognitive processes and reduce the impact of stereotypes.
Creativity
Creativity provides a distinct method to inhibit the activation of stereotypes by encouraging individuals to embrace innovative ways of thinking. Tartaglia and Rollero (2015) suggest that engaging in a creative mindset can interrupt the unconscious activation of stereotypes. This mechanism exploits the concept that participating in creative thinking diverts cognitive processes from depending on automatic and stereotyped connections, hence fostering more refined and personalized judgments. Evoking creative mindsets entails stimulating individuals to engage in creative thinking or motivating them to approach a task with a mentality that emphasizes originality and varied thinking. Talaska et al. (2008) propose that by emphasizing innovative approaches and different viewpoints, individuals can reduce their tendency to rely on automatic preconceptions. This promotes cognitive flexibility and disrupts the inflexible conceptual frameworks linked to stereotyping. The objective of this proactive approach is to establish a cognitive state that is not compatible with the automatic activation of stereotypes.
Stewart and Raihani (2023) conducted research where participants were exposed to three distinct mental states: creative, reflective, or no particular mental state. The findings revealed that participants in the creative mindset condition demonstrated less stereotype activation upon exposure to Black faces, in contrast to those in the thoughtful or no mindset conditions. This implies that engaging in a creative mindset deliberately interrupts the spontaneous connections associated with stereotype activation. The study employed a lexical choice task to evaluate the influence of attitude activation on the cognitive processing of stereotypic and non-stereotypic words following exposure to Black faces. Individuals in the creative mindset group exhibited a noteworthy decrease in reaction times to stereotypical terms in comparison to those in the thoughtful or neutral mindset groups. This empirical research confirms that involving individuals in a creative mindset may successfully avoid or interrupt the spontaneous activation of stereotypes, offering a proactive approach to reduce biased cognitive processes.
Conclusion
The ubiquity of stereotypes in popular culture exerts a strong influence on interpersonal dynamics, fostering prejudice and hate. The repetitive nature of stereotyping blurs the boundaries between intellectual comprehension and emotional reactions. However, individuals have the option to employ proactive and reactive control methods to moderate their preconceptions. Stereotyping activation and application consist of two interrelated processes: the automatic retrieval of preconceptions and the subsequent decision-making over their use. The Dissociation Model exemplifies a reactive control mechanism that underscores the necessity for individuals to proactively confront and mitigate the impact of stereotypes. Individuals are accountable for their perceptions, dependence on outcomes, and increased cognitive processing as they strive to achieve accuracy goals, which are components of reactive control. Galinsky and Moskowitz advocate for a proactive control technique known as perspective taking, which involves adopting the viewpoint of others to reduce the occurrence of stereotypical thinking. Individuals can actively prevent and counteract the unconscious activation and application of stereotypes by employing proactive control mechanisms such as expectancies, associations, long-term goals, implementation intentions, and creativity. These strategies have an impact on cognitive processes, foster fairness and impartiality, and counteract prevailing biases.
References
Amodio, D. M. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652. https://psycnet.apa.org/record/2006-12810-006
Baldwin, M., Keefer, L. A., Gravelin, C. R., & Biernat, M. (2012). Perceived importance of cross-race targets facilitates recall: Support for a motivated account of face memory. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 16(4), 505–515. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430212460893
Baxter, J. (2018). Women Leaders and Gender Stereotyping in the UK Press. Springer International Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-64328-1
Beeghly, E. (2015). What is a Stereotype? What is Stereotyping? Hypatia, 30(4), 675–691. https://doi.org/10.1111/hypa.12170
Braithwaite, J., Clay-Williams, R., Vecellio, E., Marks, D., Hooper, T., Westbrook, M., Westbrook, J., Blakely, B., & Ludlow, K. (2016). The basis of clinical tribalism, hierarchy and stereotyping: a laboratory-controlled teamwork experiment. BMJ Open, 6(7), e012467. https://doi.org/10.1136/bmjopen-2016-012467
Brauer, M., Er-rafiy, A., Kawakami, K., & Phills, C. E. (2012). Describing a group in positive terms reduces prejudice less effectively than describing it in positive and negative terms. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 757–761. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.11.002
Carrillat, F. A., Solomon, P. J., & d’Astous, A. (2015). Brand Stereotyping and Image Transfer in Concurrent Sponsorships. Journal of Advertising, 44(4), 300–314. https://doi.org/10.1080/00913367.2015.1083916
Devine, G. P. (1989). Stereotype and prejudice-Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 680–690. https://cir.nii.ac.jp/crid/1574231875884214656
Fausett, D. (2022). Images of the Antipodes in the Eighteenth Century: A Study in Stereotyping. In Google Books. BRILL. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=Ap1jEAAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PP3&dq=Stereotyping&ots=U1_P3IOXgV&sig=g8Amqrg1lgiqDfbjc3AkWOJGFRE
Fischbach, A., Lichtenthaler, P. W., & Horstmann, N. (2015). Leadership and Gender Stereotyping of Emotions. Journal of Personnel Psychology, 14(3), 153–162. https://doi.org/10.1027/1866-5888/a000136
Hall, E. V., Hall, A. V., Galinsky, A. D., & Phillips, K. W. (2019). MOSAIC: A Model of Stereotyping Through Associated and Intersectional Categories. Academy of Management Review, 44(3), 643–672. https://doi.org/10.5465/amr.2017.0109
Hill, C. G., Haag, M., Oleson, A., Mendez, C., Marsden, N., Sarma, A., & Burnett, M. (2017). Gender-Inclusiveness Personas vs. Stereotyping. Proceedings of the 2017 CHI Conference on Human Factors in Computing Systems – CHI ’17. https://doi.org/10.1145/3025453.3025609
Inzlicht, M., Gutsell, J. N., & Legault, L. (2012). Mimicry reduces racial prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 361–365. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.06.007
Li, T., Khot, T., Khashabi, D., Sabharwal, A., & Srikumar, V. (2020). UnQovering Stereotyping Biases via Underspecified Questions. ArXiv:2010.02428 [Cs]. https://arxiv.org/abs/2010.02428
Ma, D. S., Correll, J., & Wittenbrink, B. (2018). The effects of category and physical features on stereotyping and evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 79, 42–50. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.06.008
Maister, L., Sebanz, N., Knoblich, G., & Tsakiris, M. (2013). Experiencing ownership over a dark-skinned body reduces implicit racial bias. Cognition, 128(2), 170–178. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cognition.2013.04.002
Mendoza, S. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Amodio, D. M. (2010). Reducing the Expression of Implicit Stereotypes: Reflexive Control Through Implementation Intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36(4), 512–523. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167210362789
Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice-reduction efforts. Journal of personality and social psychology. https://psycnet.apa.org/journals/psp/65/3/469/
Pauker, K., Xu, Y., Williams, A., & Biddle, A. M. (2016). Race Essentialism and Social Contextual Differences in Children’s Racial Stereotyping. Child Development, 87(5), 1409–1422. https://doi.org/10.1111/cdev.12592
Priest, N., Slopen, N., Woolford, S., Philip, J. T., Singer, D., Kauffman, A. D., Mosely, K., Davis, M., Ransome, Y., & Williams, D. (2018). Stereotyping across intersections of race and age: Racial stereotyping among White adults working with children. PLOS ONE, 13(9), e0201696. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0201696
Puddifoot, K. (2019). Stereotyping Patients. Journal of Social Philosophy, 50(1), 69–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/josp.12269
Rohmer, O., & Louvet, E. (2016). Implicit stereotyping against people with disability. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 21(1), 127–140. https://doi.org/10.1177/1368430216638536
Rosenthal, L., & Overstreet, N. (2016). Stereotyping. Clark Digital Commons. https://commons.clarku.edu/faculty_psychology/556/
Sassenberg, K., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Don’t stereotype, think different! Overcoming automatic stereotype activation by mindset priming. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(5), 506–514. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.002
Sjoberg, L. (2016). Women as Wartime Rapists: Beyond Sensation and Stereotyping. In Google Books. NYU Press. https://books.google.com/books?hl=en&lr=&id=9C1ADQAAQBAJ&oi=fnd&pg=PA1&dq=Stereotyping&ots=QVmgCLGnsE&sig=-rhgVCfjECfaYHboHZ6vr4MCMQs
Stewart, A. J., & Raihani, N. (2023). Group reciprocity and the evolution of stereotyping. Proceedings of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 290(1991). https://doi.org/10.1098/rspb.2022.1834
Talaska, C. A., Fiske, S. T., & Chaiken, S. (2008). Legitimating Racial Discrimination: Emotions, Not Beliefs, Best Predict Discrimination in a Meta-Analysis. Social Justice Research, 21(3), 263–296. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11211-008-0071-2
Tanjitpiyanond, P., Jetten, J., & Peters, K. (2022). How economic inequality shapes social class stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 98, 104248. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2021.104248
Tartaglia, S., & Rollero, C. (2015). Gender Stereotyping in Newspaper Advertisements. Journal of Cross-Cultural Psychology, 46(8), 1103–1109. https://doi.org/10.1177/0022022115597068
van Dijk, H., Meyer, B., van Engen, M., & Loyd, D. L. (2017). Microdynamics in Diverse Teams: A Review and Integration of the Diversity and Stereotyping Literatures. Academy of Management Annals, 11(1), 517–557. https://doi.org/10.5465/annals.2014.0046
Whitehead, K. A. (2017). Managing the Moral Accountability of Stereotyping. Journal of Language and Social Psychology, 37(3), 288–309. https://doi.org/10.1177/0261927×17723679
Yzerbyt, V. (2016). Intergroup stereotyping. Current Opinion in Psychology, pp. 11, 90–95. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.copsyc.2016.06.009
write