A dual processing approach to stereotype change

Publication Year
1995

Type

Journal Article
Abstract

The reported research considered the applicability of a dual process framework to stereotype change. Three experiments manipulated task involvement, source credibility, and message quality and measured stereotype change. Under conditions of high involvement, stereotype change was effected only by message cues. In low-involvement conditions, there was an additive effect of source and message cues. This credibility effect was due to an enhancement of the impact of stereotype-disconfirming information when presented by a highly credible source. These findings show differential processing of stereotype-disconfirming information under hig4 and low involvement, consistent with the dual process approach. Processing time, recall, and thought listing also showed differential processing of the counter stereotypical message under high-and low-involvement conditions. Results are discussed in terms of the models of persuasion, and implications for traditional stereotype change research are considered.

Journal
Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin
Volume
21
Pages
660-673
Type of Article
Journal Article
Full text

The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Experiment 1

Method

Subjects and design. Volunteering to participate in the experiment were 76 undergraduates at a British university. A 2 (Task Involvement: High/Low) X 3 (Source Credibility: No-Source/High/Low) between-subjects design was used.

Procedure. Subjects were told that the experiment was part of larger study considering perceptions of a number of groups in society. Subjects were tested individually. They were randomly allocated to experimental conditions, with equal proportions of males and females in each condition [...]. All the subjects read the same behavioral items about the members of the target group, but the source of these items was varied across experimental conditions. In the no-source condition, the statement was not attributed to anybody; in the high-credibility condition, the statement was attributed to the Senior Care Worker at the residential home, and in the low-credibility condition, to the Caretaker at the home. After reading the behavioral information, subjects made a number of ratings. [...] Subjects then rated how characteristic each of the chosen traits—four stereotypic, three counterstereotypic, and two irrelevant—was of the group in general. All ratings were made on 9-point scales (1 = not at all characteristic, 9 = very characteristic).

Experiment 2

Method

Subjects and design. Volunteering to participate in the experiment were 54 sixth-form pupils at a comprehensive school in Wiltshire, England. A 2 (Distraction: No-Distraction/Distraction) X 3 (Source Credibility: No-Source/High/Low) between-subjects design was used.

Procedure. Subjects were told that the experiment was part of a larger study considering perceptions of a number of groups in society. Subjects were randomly allocated to experimental conditions, with equal proportions of males and females in each condition. [...] After reading the message, subjects completed a number of measures. First they read the instructions for the thought listing task: [Text Stimulus A]. When subjects had finished reading the instructions, they turned over the page and began to fill in the boxes. [...] Subjects then rated how characteristic each of the seven stereotypic and seven counterstereotypic traits was of skinheads in general (1 = not at all characteristic, 9 = very characteristic).

Experiment 3

Method

Subjects and design. A total of 105 undergraduates at a British university volunteered to participate in the experiment [...]. A 2 (Task Involvement: High/Low) X 2 (Message Quality: Strong/Moderate) X 3 (Source Credibility: No-Source/High/Low) between-subjects design was used.

Procedure. Subjects were told that the experiment was part of a larger study considering perceptions of a number of groups in society. Subjects were tested individually. They were randomly allocated to experimental conditions, with equal proportions of males and females in each condition. The involvement manipulation was given to subjects in a booklet. After reading this manipulation, subjects were seated in front of an IBM PC that presented the instructions, the source manipulation, and the message for one of the experimental conditions. [...] After reading the message, subjects were directed to fill in a questionnaire given to them by the experimenter. [...] They rated how knowledgeable the source of the information (Professor or Mr. Cummings) was about the target group [...] and then rated how characteristic each of the seven stereotypic and seven counterstereotypic traits was of skinheads in general (1 = not at all characteristic, 9 = very characteristic). [...]

Type of Prejudice/Bias
Country
Method