testing the cognitive-affective consistency model of intercultural attitudes: do stereotypical...

This article was downloaded by: [Washington State University Libraries ]On: 24 November 2014, At: 22:11Publisher: RoutledgeInforma Ltd Registered in England and Wales Registered Number: 1072954 Registeredoffice: Mortimer House, 37-41 Mortimer Street, London W1T 3JH, UK

Journal of Intercultural CommunicationResearchPublication details, including instructions for authors andsubscription information:http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

Testing the Cognitive-AffectiveConsistency Model of InterculturalAttitudes: Do Stereotypical PerceptionsInfluence Prejudicial Feelings?Srividya RamasubramanianPublished online: 29 Nov 2010.

To cite this article: Srividya Ramasubramanian (2010) Testing the Cognitive-AffectiveConsistency Model of Intercultural Attitudes: Do Stereotypical Perceptions InfluencePrejudicial Feelings?, Journal of Intercultural Communication Research, 39:2, 105-121, DOI:10.1080/17475759.2010.526317

To link to this article: http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2010.526317

PLEASE SCROLL DOWN FOR ARTICLE

Taylor & Francis makes every effort to ensure the accuracy of all the information (the“Content”) contained in the publications on our platform. However, Taylor & Francis,our agents, and our licensors make no representations or warranties whatsoever as tothe accuracy, completeness, or suitability for any purpose of the Content. Any opinionsand views expressed in this publication are the opinions and views of the authors,and are not the views of or endorsed by Taylor & Francis. The accuracy of the Contentshould not be relied upon and should be independently verified with primary sourcesof information. Taylor and Francis shall not be liable for any losses, actions, claims,proceedings, demands, costs, expenses, damages, and other liabilities whatsoever orhowsoever caused arising directly or indirectly in connection with, in relation to or arisingout of the use of the Content.

This article may be used for research, teaching, and private study purposes. Anysubstantial or systematic reproduction, redistribution, reselling, loan, sub-licensing,systematic supply, or distribution in any form to anyone is expressly forbidden. Terms &Conditions of access and use can be found at http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/loi/rjic20

http://www.tandfonline.com/action/showCitFormats?doi=10.1080/17475759.2010.526317

http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/17475759.2010.526317

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

http://www.tandfonline.com/page/terms-and-conditions

Journal of Intercultural Communication ResearchVol. 39, No. 2, July 2010, pp. 105–121

Testing the Cognitive-AffectiveConsistency Model of InterculturalAttitudes: Do StereotypicalPerceptions Influence PrejudicialFeelings?

Srividya Ramasubramanian

This paper explores how cognitive beliefs, emotional feelings, and attitudinal evaluationstoward racial/ethnic out-groups are inter-related. The first two studies examined the

content and strength of contemporary cultural stereotypes associated by White-Americanparticipants with African-Americans and Asian-Indians. Path analyses using empirical

data from the final survey (N¼ 227) reveal a complex set of relationships amongstereotypical beliefs, prejudicial feelings, and overall favorability toward African-

Americans and Asian-Indians. Interestingly, even seemingly positive stereotypes canactivate negative emotions toward out-groups. Additionally, hostile and benevolent

prejudicial feelings lead to decreased favorability toward out-groups. Results find supportfor mixed emotion models such as the stereotype content model rather than thetraditional tripartite model of attitudinal consistency.

Keywords: Stereotypes; Prejudice; Racial Attitudes; Intercultural Communication

The distinction between affect and cognition has been an essential one in

understanding racial bias in inter-group relations. Dual processing theories inform

us that people tend to use existing stereotypical knowledge rather than individuating

information while communicating with a member of another cultural group

(Chaiken & Trope, 1999). Apart from such accessible cognitive schemas, pre-existing

affective dispositions such as contempt and pity can also influence intercultural

communication. In inter-racial contexts, stereotypes refer to the widely held

S. Ramasubramanian is an Assistant Professor of Communication at Texas A&M University. Her interests are in

media psychology, inter-group communication, and media literacy. Correspondence to S. Ramasubramanian,

Department of Communication, MS 4234, Texas A&M University, College Station, TX 77843.

Email: [email protected]

ISSN 1747-5759 (print)/ISSN 1747-5767 (online) � 2010 World Communication Association

DOI: 10.1080/17475759.2010.526317

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

culturally rooted cognitive representations of out-group members while prejudice

refers to affective responses toward out-group members. Prior research demonstrates

that cognition-based stereotypes are better predictors of participants’ social

judgments and policy opinions and that affect-based prejudice is a better predictive

of social distance and non-verbal communication (Amodio & Devine, 2006; Dovidio,

Esses, Beach, & Gaertner, 2004).

Just as stereotypes can be positive or negative, prejudicial feelings can also be

hostile or benevolent. Research shows that even seemingly positive stereotypes might

not necessarily translate into positive attitudes toward out-groups. For instance,

Asian-Americans might be seen as intelligent, polite ‘‘model minorities’’ on the one

hand, but as unsociable and lacking in communication skills on the other hand,

leading to ambivalent feelings toward them. Similarly, although African-Americans

might be evaluated as musically talented and athletic, such positive evaluations do

not automatically translate to open, meaningful inter-group interactions. In other

words, affective and cognitive dimensions might not necessarily translate to favorable

attitudes toward out-groups.

The current paper explores the level of consistency between overall favorability

toward an out-group, stereotypical perceptions (positive or negative), and the types

of prejudice (hostile or benevolent) in the context of Whites’ attitudes toward

African-Americans and Asian-Indians. The first study uses a thought-listing

procedure to generate the common stereotypes associated with African-Americans

and Asian-Indians. The second study determines the most prominent stereotypes by

measuring the strength of these stereotypes using a survey design. In the final survey,

path analyses are used to model the relationships among participants’ stereotypical

attributes, prejudicial feelings, and overall favorability toward these racial/ethnic out-

groups to test for the consistency between cognitive, affective, and evaluative

dimensions of inter-racial attitudes.

Stereotypes as Cognitive Beliefs about Out-Groups in Intercultural Contexts

The word stereotype was first described by Walter Lippmann in his book Public

Opinion (1922) as ‘‘pictures in our heads’’ of social groups around us. Gestalt

theories (Asch, 1946) inform us that stereotypes are schematic or cognitive

representations in long-term memory (Dovidio, Evans, & Tyler, 1986; Stangor &

Lange, 1994; Taylor & Crocker, 1981). Prior knowledge influences how we make

sense of our interactions with newly encountered people (Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg,

1999; Fiske & Taylor, 1991). Stereotypes lead to expectations, which subsequently

affect both the encoding and interpretation of messages with the stereotyped groups.

Stereotypes are activated as a result of social categorization of individuals as

members of a particular socio-cultural group. As ‘‘cognitive misers’’ we try to

conserve our cognitive resources by engaging in only as much information processing

as is seen adequate for making sense of others (Fiske & Taylor, 1991). As the default

mode of information processing in inter-group settings, stereotypes are used to

conserve mental resources (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985; Macrae, Milne, &

106 S. Ramasubramanian

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Bodenhausen, 1994), to simplify the world around us (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990), to get

a greater sense of predictability of the world (Tajfel, 1969), to justify social reality

(Oakes & Turner, 1986), and facilitate self-fulfilling prophecies (Linville, Fischer, &

Salovey, 1989).Although stereotypes can be useful in conserving mental resources, they can also

have several detrimental effects in inter-group relations. In intercultural commu-nication contexts this could mean stereotypical processing of information based

on social categorization rather than individuated processing based on the specific

attributes of the individual with whom we are interacting. Even though both routes

of information processing are possible in intercultural communication, unless thereare motivational reasons to be accurate, people will be likely to simply use existing

cultural stereotypes in forming impressions rather than pay greater attention to

individuating information (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990).

Prejudice as Affective Dispositions toward Out-Groups in Intercultural Contexts

Whereas stereotypes focus on the perceptions about groups, the more affective aspectof racial attitudes are captured by prejudice. Prejudice has traditionally been defined

as ‘‘faulty and inflexible generalization’’ (Allport, 1954, p. 9) or a ‘‘rigid attitude

(a predisposition to respond to a certain stimulus in a certain way) toward a group

of people’’ (Simpson & Yinger, 1958). Old-fashioned prejudice is characterized byovert and open dislike for members of the stigmatized group. Kovel (1970) referred

to this type of prejudice as a ‘‘dominative’’ form of racism where prejudiced people

act in ‘‘bigoted’’ ways, expressing their negative feelings quite candidly and endorsing

derogatory statements about stigmatized groups. But such a definition cannotexplain benevolent forms of prejudice where positive feelings are rooted in perceived

in-group superiority (Glick & Fiske, 1996).Contemporary research on prejudice has expanded the notion of prejudice to go

beyond contemptuous feelings. For instance, ambivalent feelings are expressed

toward groups that are seen as highly competitive but not very sociable (Fiske,

Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002; Fiske, Xu, Cuddy, & Glick, 1999). Glick and Fiske (1996)noted that feelings of pity and sympathy can be expressions of benevolent prejudice

when the out-group is perceived to be subordinate and incompetent. Other

researchers who have studied prejudice have discussed feelings such as White guilt(Swim & Miller, 1999), agitation, and amusement (Fazio & Hilden, 2001), especially

among those people who feel morally obliged and motivated to control their

prejudice. Even though the manifestations of this type of prejudice are not negative

feelings, they are seen as hurtful, offensive, and inappropriate from the target’sperspective (Swim & Stangor, 1998).

Relationship between Cognitive and Affective Aspects of Intercultural Attitudes

The commonly held view about the relationship of stereotypes and prejudice is

elaborated in the following explanation: ‘‘prejudice as a negative attitude towards an

out-group or the members of that group is usually based on a negative stereotype,

Journal of Intercultural Communication Research 107

Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

that is, on beliefs that associate that group with predominantly negative attributes’’

(Stroebe & Insko, 1989, p. 4). However, researchers such as Rosenberg and Hovland

(1960) assume that the relationship is reciprocal such that changes in prejudicial

feelings can also lead to changes in stereotypical beliefs.

The tripartite model of attitude consistency suggests that there are three

components of racial bias—cognitive, affective, and behavioral (Rosenberg &

Hovland, 1960). This model assumes that knowledge-attitudes-behaviors have to be

consistent with one another. That is, cognitive beliefs (stereotypes), affective feelings

(prejudice), and behavioral aspects (discrimination) are different facets of the same

attitudes and therefore they should be highly inter-related. According to this line

of reasoning, if an individual discriminates against another person, it automatically

signals the presence of unfavorable feelings toward the person stemming from an

existing stereotypical belief system.

From an intercultural conflict perspective, stereotypes aid in in-group socialization

by expressing prejudice against those out-groups with different values from your own

(Sherif & Sherif, 1953). Therefore, stereotypes serve a detachment function in order

to justify prejudice and discrimination (Snyder & Miene, 1994). Similarly, realistic

conflict theory explains that prejudice arises out of competition to win scarcely

available tangible resources in intercultural contexts (LeVine & Campbell, 1972).

From this viewpoint, feelings of threat affect both intra-group relations (such as

punishments and rewards) and inter-group relations (such as out-group hostility).

More recently, this theory has been extended to include even the mere perception

of out-group competition for resources could lead to conflict among groups

(Esses, Jackson, & Armstrong, 1998).According to the social identity perspective, inter-group conflicts arise more

because of competition for prestige and status in society (Tajfel & Turner, 1979).

Furthermore, social identity theory suggests that people have a need to maintain

a favorable self-image. In other words, negative stereotypes are seen as serving the

purpose of increasing one’s positive self-identity (Crocker & Major, 1989; Fein &

Spencer, 1997; Tajfel & Turner, 1979). Based on social identity theory, we can expect

that in-group members will be viewed much more favorably as compared to out-

group members. Therefore, any attributes along which out-group members differ

considerably from in-group members will not be valued much.

Stereotypes Associated with African-Americans and Asian-Indians

This study examines two out-groups—African-Americans and Asian-Indians.

African-Americans have been historically discriminated against and oppressed in

the United States for several centuries. Traditionally, African-Americans are seen as a

competitive threat to White dominance. However, more recently, the raising socio-

economic mobility of Asian-Americans, especially new immigrants from India and

China, could also been perceived to threaten White-American resources.

Much of the prior literature on stereotype content assessment has revolved

around cultural stereotypes of African-Americans. The primary cultural stereotypes


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

associated with African-Americans seem to be that they are poor, aggressive/tough,

criminal, low in intelligence, uneducated, lazy, sexually perverse, and athletic (Devine,

1989). More recently, Devine and Elliot (2000) found that participants mentioned

some additional characteristics such as unreliable, rhythmic, and hostile. Lepore and

Brown (2000) found that additional attributes such as rude, unintegrated, smelly,

colorful, fun loving, persecuted, and superstitious were also observed. Overall, although

most of the stereotypes were negative in valence, some such as athleticism and

rhythmic were positive stereotypes.With respect to stereotypes associated with Asian-Indians, a study by Jones and

Ashmore (1973) showed that when evaluated along seven different dimensions,

Indians and Hindus were grouped together under the label of dark-skinned Orientals.

In a more recent study by Naidoo (1986), polite, friendly, traditional, calm, and

family-oriented were mentioned as positive stereotypes while rude, ethnocentric,

subservient, arrogant, and traditional were listed as negative stereotypes of South

Asians. The author suggests that depending on the prejudice levels of the

participants, the same attributes were perceived as either positive or negative. For

instance, being traditional was mentioned by low-prejudiced participants as a positive

quality but by high-prejudiced persons as a negative quality. Similarly, low-prejudice

participants perceived South Asians to be quiet and polite, but this attribute was

interpreted as unfriendly and aloof among those participants who were highly

prejudiced toward this group.African-Americans have largely been stereotyped as ‘‘bad minorities’’ using

negatively valenced traits such as criminality and laziness whereas Asian-Americans

have been positioned as ‘‘good minorities’’ who are hardworking, intelligent, and

most importantly, unquestioning of White power. However, both types of out-

groups are positioned as inferior to the in-group White norm. By studying

the attitudes, feelings, and perceptions relating to these two out-groups, we hope

to understand the complex relationships among positive/negative stereotypes,

hostile/benevolent prejudice, and favorable/unfavorable attitudes toward out-groups.

Research Questions

Within the context of this study, stereotypes (positive or negative) are defined as

personality traits and socio-cultural characteristics that are strongly associated

with members of racial groups. In contrast, prejudice is conceptualized as the

unwarranted, over-generalized feelings (hostile or benevolent) toward members of

out-groups. One of the objectives of this project was to systematically generate and

measure the strength of the contemporary cultural stereotypes and prejudicial

feelings associated with African-Americans and Asian-Indians by dominant White-

American participants. Therefore, the following research question was posed:

RQ1: What is the content and strength of the stereotypical attributes andprejudicial feelings associated with African-Americans and Asian-Indians?


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

According to the tripartite model of attitudes, stereotypical beliefs are highly

correlated with prejudicial feelings such that negative beliefs lead to negative feelings

toward out-groups and vice-versa. In contrast, the stereotype content model (SCM)

proposes that some seemingly positive stereotypes could lead to either hostile or

benevolent prejudice, which need not be correlated with overall favorable attitudes

toward the out-groups. To test these two differing models of relationships between

stereotypes and prejudice, the following second research question was proposed:

RQ2: What is the relationship among stereotypical perceptions, prejudicial feelings,and overall favorability toward African-Americans and Asian-Indians?

Method

Overview

Three studies were conducted to address the research questions. Study 1 used a free-

response thought-listing procedure to generate common stereotypes of African-

Americans and Asian-Indians. Study 2 used a survey design on measuring the

strength of these stereotypes to determine which of these stereotypes were widely

held and seen as most typical of these out-groups. In the final survey in Study 3,

participants indicated their stereotypical perceptions, prejudicial feelings, and overall

favorability toward these out-groups. All data were collected in a large public

university in North-Eastern United States.

Study 1—Generating Stereotypical Attributes

Fifty undergraduate communication students participated in a free-response task in

order to record their knowledge about cultural stereotypes associated with various

groups in society. Participants were asked to note down all traits, characteristics,

and thoughts that come to mind when they think of cultural stereotypes related to

White-Americans, African-Americans, and Asian-Indians. They were told specifically

that the researchers were not interested in their personal beliefs about these groups

but about their knowledge of what characteristics other people in general associate

with these groups, regardless of the accuracy of these associations. Once participants

completed this free thought-listing task, they were asked to go back to the attributes

and indicate how prevalent most people would think these characteristics to be for

that group.

Study 2—Measuring Strength of Stereotypical Attributes

Forty-seven undergraduate students from a communications course participated in

this study. Forty traits mentioned most frequently as being associated with African-

Americans and Asian-Indians in Study 1 were used for this study. Whereas Study 1

focused on generating relevant stereotypical traits, Study 2 was designed to measure

the strength of the stereotypes. Thus, the emphasis was on the degree or extent to


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

which stereotypical attributes were seen as typical of out-groups in comparison to

the reference group (or in-group), which in this case was White-Americans. This

study helped to identify the traits seen as most stereotypical of African-Americans

and Asian-Indians. Participants used 7-point Likert-type scales ranging from 1

(not at all) to 7 (very well) to indicate the extent to which various traits described

White-Americans, African-Americans, and Asian-Indians.

Study 3—Measuring Relationships among Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Favorability

Two hundred and twenty-seven undergraduate communications students partici-

pated in the final study. They took part in a social issues study that measured their

cognitive, evaluative, and emotional aspects of attitudes toward African-Americans,

White-Americans, and Asian-Indians. Only the responses of White participants

were considered for further analysis (N¼ 196; 86.3%). Almost an equal number were

males (N¼ 97; 49.50%) as compared to females (N¼ 99; 50.50%). These participants

ranged in age from 18 to 42 (M¼ 20.56, SD¼ 2.90). Over 83% of the participants

were in the age group 19–21 and in their junior year.First, the experimenter handed out the social issues questionnaires that contained

items related to participants’ perceptions and feelings toward various groups. Once

the participants completed this questionnaire, they placed the completed ques-

tionnaires in a drop-box. In this social issues questionnaire, participants rated

African-Americans, Asian-Indians, and White-Americans on 7-point Likert-type

scales ranging from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very much) about the extent to which various

listed traits (e.g., rude, hostile, malnourished, uneducated, etc.) described their

perceptions of Asian-Indians, African-Americans, and White-Americans as a group.

These ratings scales were similar to the ones used by Fiske, Xu et al. (1999) as well as

by Eckes (2002).

Similar scales were used to indicate the extent to which various listed feelings

and emotions (e.g., fear, anger, pity, discomfort, etc.) described their affective

reactions toward Asian-Indians, African-Americans, and White-Americans

(Eckes, 2002; Fiske et al., 2002; Fiske, Xu et al., 1999).Participants rated their overall feelings of favorableness toward White-Americans,

African-Americans, and Asian-Indians on a 9-point thermometer scale ranging

from 0o (very cold or unfavorable feeling) to 100o (very warm or favorable feeling)

(e.g. Hugenberg & Bodenhausen, 2003).

Results

Study 1—Generating Stereotypical Attributes

In Study 1, a free-response task was used to generate cultural stereotypes associated

with African-Americans and Asian-Indians. Two judges discussed, sorted, and

grouped the remaining words and phrases into synonym groups. Idiosyncratic


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

responses and characteristics that were reported as being prevalent in not more than

50% of the target group were dropped from further analyses.

Study 2—Measuring Strength of Stereotypical Attributes

The attributes that emerged from Pretest 1 as the content of stereotypes associated

with Indians and African-Americans were used for the scales in this pretest.

A repeated-measures ANOVA was conducted on the rating scores of participants’perceptions regarding African-Americans, Asian-Indians, and White-Americans.

Attributes associated with African-Americans and Asian-Indians were compared with

baseline scores associated with in-group White-Americans. Those traits that were

significantly different from the baseline scores for African-Americans but not forAsian-Indians were categorized as unique African-American attributes. Similarly,

when ratings for Asian-Indians were significantly different from Whites and African-

Americans, they were categorized as unique Indian traits. There were some attributesthat were common to both African-American and Asian-Indian perceptions but

significantly different from White-Americans. Such attributes were categorized as

common stereotypes. Traits and characteristics that were not seen as relevant to

either African-American or Asian-Indian stereotypes were dropped from furtheranalyses in the final stage of the project.

Study 3—Measuring Relationships among Stereotypes, Prejudice, and Favorability

Factor analyses

Exploratory factor analyses using principal components extraction and oblimin

rotation were employed to remove redundancies from the set of 36 stereotypicalattributes associated with African-American and Asian-Indians. The initial number

of factors was determined by examining the scree plot of the eigenvalues and by

including eigenvalues greater than one (Cattell, 1966). The pattern matrix wasobserved for factor loadings. Items with factor loadings below .35 were removed

from the analysis. Also, variables whose loadings with their primary factor

components that did not vary by more than .20 from their loadings with other

factor components were dropped from the analysis. Moreover, items with Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measures less than .50 were removed from the analysis. The final

factors were determined based on interpretability of the factors and simple structure.

The final solution for the uniquely African-American stereotypes yielded twofinal factors: ‘‘Criminality Stereotype’’ and ‘‘Talent Stereotype.’’ The ‘‘Criminality

stereotype’’ (Cronbach’s �¼ .87; Eigenvalue¼ 5.01; Variance explained¼ 41.73%)

included characteristics such as hostile, criminal, do drugs, and lazy. The ‘‘TalentStereotype’’ included items such as musically talented and athletic (Cronbach’s

�¼ .74; Eigenvalue¼ 1.54; Variance explained¼ 12.82%).

Analyses of uniquely Asian-Indian stereotypes resulted in two factors: ‘‘ModelMinority Stereotype’’ and ‘‘Cohesiveness Stereotype.’’ The ‘‘Model Minority

Stereotype’’ included items such as quiet, hard-working, and passive (Cronbach’s

�¼ .85; Eigenvalue¼ 3.55; Variance explained¼ 44.35%). The second factor,


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

‘‘Cohesiveness Stereotype’’ included items such as traditional, religious, and family-

oriented (Cronbach’s �¼ .80; Eigenvalue¼ 1.73; Variance explained¼ 21.68%).Analyses of common stereotypical attributes for both African-Americans and

Asian-Indians yielded one final interpretable reliable factor labeled ‘‘DeprivationStereotype.’’ This factor included items such as uneducated, uncivilized, poor, and

diseased (Cronbach’s �¼ .85; Eigenvalue¼ 4.05; Variance explained¼ 45.03%).Similarly, factor analyses of prejudicial feelings toward African-Americans and

Asian-Indians conducted in the same manner as those for stereotypical perceptionsyielded two factors: ‘‘Hostile Prejudice’’ and ‘‘Benevolent Prejudice.’’ The ‘‘Hostile

Prejudice’’ comprised items such as fear, nervousness, anger, dislike, and discomfort

(Cronbach’s �¼ .90; Eigenvalue¼ 4.62; Variance explained¼ 57.77%). The‘‘Benevolent Prejudice’’ factor consisted of pity, sadness, and guilt (Cronbach’s

�¼ .82; Eigenvalue¼ 1.16; Variance explained¼ 14.45%).

Correlational analyses

A preliminary bivariate correlational analyses were conducted among the fivestereotype indices (criminality, talent, model minority, cohesiveness, and depriva-

tion), the two prejudice indices (hostile prejudice and benevolent prejudice), andoverall favorability (see Table 1). Interestingly, criminality stereotype was positively

correlated with both hostile and benevolent prejudice but slightly negativelyassociated with overall favorability. Talent stereotype had a slightly positive

association with hostile prejudice and a positive one with overall favorability.Model minority stereotype had a moderately negative correlation with hostile

stereotype but did not influence benevolent prejudice or overall favorability.Cohesiveness stereotype had slightly positive correlation with benevolent prejudice

although it does not correlate with hostile prejudice or overall favorability.Deprivation stereotype was strongly correlated with both hostile and benevolent

prejudice but was negatively correlated with overall favorability. Hostile and

benevolent prejudice had a strong positive correlation. Surprisingly, overallfavorability was negatively correlated with both hostile and benevolent prejudice.

Table 1 Correlations, Means, and Standard Deviations for the Variables in theRegression Analyses.

Variables M SD 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8

Criminality 3.50 .91 –Talent 4.30 1.37 .39** –Model minority 4.30 1.27 �.80** �.57** –Cohesiveness 4.72 1.29 �.27** �.13** .26** –Deprivation 3.14 1.09 .49** .05 �.24** .28** –Hostile prejudice 2.06 1.18 .48** .12** �.39** .06 .40** –Benevolent prejudice 2.17 1.24 .26** �.03 �.08 .24** .50** .58** –Overall favorability 7.19 19.27 �.22** .22** �.00 �.06 �.36** �.34** �.22** –

Notes. ** indicates that the correlation is significant at the p5.01 level. All variables except overall favorabilitywere measured on a 7-point scale. Overall favorability was measured on a 100-point scale.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Differences in ratings as a function of racial groupA one-way repeated measures analysis of variance revealed significant differences

in self-reported stereotypical perceptions, prejudicial feelings, and overall favorability

for various target groups (see Table 2). As expected, ratings for unique African-

American stereotypes—criminality and talent—were significantly higher for African-

Americans as compared to White-Americans and Asian-Indians. Similarly, ratings

for unique Asian-Indian stereotypes—model minority and cohesiveness—were

significantly higher for Asian-Indians as compared to the other two racial groups.

Scores for the deprivation stereotype, common to both African-Americans and

Asian-Indians, were significantly higher for both these groups as compared to those

of Whites. Hostile prejudice scores were significantly higher for African-Americans as

compared to Whites and Indians. For benevolent prejudice, scores for Asian-Indians

were highest, followed by those for African-Americans, and the least for White-

Americans. In terms of overall favorability, highest scores were for the in-group

Whites, followed by those for African-Americans, and the least for Asian-Indians.

Path analyses

Path analyses were conducted to test the direct and indirect relationships among

the exogenous and endogenous variables. A non-significant chi-square value,

a comparative fit index (CFI) score above .90, and a root mean square error of

approximation (RMSEA) value of less than .06 were seen as indicators of a good

fit of the model with the data (Hu & Bentler, 1999).Figure 1 illustrates that the final model that emerged for Asian-Indians had a good

fit; �2 (df¼ 5, p¼ .160)¼ 7.940, CFI¼ .988, RMSEA¼ .055. Although the initial

model included three stereotypes as exogenous variables (model minority,

cohesiveness, and deprivation), cohesiveness was eventually dropped from the final

model as it did not correlate significantly with any of the endogenous variables.

Table 2 Differences in Scores for White-Americans, African-Americans, and Asian-Indians.

Variables Wh-Am Af-Am As-In Wilks’ � F p �2

Criminality 3.61a (0.66) 3.93b (0.96) 2.97c (0.84) 0.52 90.61 0.001 0.48Talent 4.37a (0.87) 5.40b (1.01) 3.14c (1.16) 0.29 243.15 0.001 0.72Model minority 3.80a (0.95) 3.74a (1.20) 5.37b (0.92) 0.30 224.55 0.001 0.70Cohesiveness 4.06a (1.09) 4.37a (1.10) 5.73b (1.04) 0.37 164.37 0.001 0.63Deprivation 2.43a (0.72) 3.43b (1.00) 3.55b (1.16) 0.43 128.36 0.001 0.57Hostile prejudice 1.98a (1.16) 2.29b (1.24) 1.94a (1.09) 0.90 10.90 0.001 0.10Benevolent prejudice 1.92a (1.07) 2.11b (1.13) 2.47c (1.43) 0.86 15.51 0.001 0.14Overall favorability 78.86a (17.65) 67.84b (18.94) 63.62c (18.22) 0.66 49.52 0.001 0.34

Notes. Wh-Am stands for White-Americans, Af-Am stands for African-Americans and As-In stands for Asian-Indians. All variables except overall favorability were measured on a 7-point scale. Overall favorability wasmeasured on a 100-point scale. Means in the same row with no lower case subscript in common differ at p5.05using Holm’s sequential bonferroni post hoc comparisons. Numbers in parentheses indicate standard deviationsfrom the mean scores. Degrees of freedom associated with the F value are (2, 193).


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Examining the individual paths in the model, model minority stereotype was

negatively correlated with deprivation stereotype (�¼�.42, p� .001). As expected,

whereas model minority stereotype was negatively correlated with hostile prejudice

(�¼�.38, p� .001), deprivation stereotype was positively correlated with benevolent

prejudice (�¼ .56, p� .001). Interestingly, although benevolent prejudice was not

associated with overall favorability, it increased hostile prejudice (�¼ .40, p� .001),

which in turn decreased overall favorability (�¼�.45, p� .05). There were no direct

paths observed between stereotypes (model minority and deprivation) with overall

favorability, suggesting that prejudicial feelings are important mediating variables

between stereotypes and favorability.Figure 2 reveals a more complex model that emerged for African-Americans

with a moderate fit with the data; �2 (df¼ 2, p¼ .117)¼ 4.288, CFI¼ .995,

RMSEA¼ .077. Once again, although the initial model included three stereotypes

associated with African-Americans (criminality, talent, and deprivation), talent

stereotype was dropped from the final model as it did not correlate with the

exogenous variables. Criminality and deprivation stereotypes were positively

correlated (�¼ .83, p� .001). Several paths connecting criminality with overall

favorability were observed. There was a direct path between criminality and overall

favorability (�¼�.21, p� .001). An indirect path was mediated by hostile prejudice

such that criminality was positively associated with hostile prejudice (�¼ .40,

p� .001), which was negatively associated with overall favorability (�¼�.42,

p� .01). Criminality was also negatively associated with benevolent prejudice

(�¼�.27, p� .05). Deprivation was positively correlated with benevolent

prejudice (�¼ .70, p� .001), which in turn was positively correlated with hostile

prejudice (�¼ .44, p� .001) and negatively correlated with overall favorability

(�¼�.17, p� .05).

Model minority stereotype

Deprivation stereotype

Hostile prejudice

Overall favorability

Benevolent prejudice

–0.42***

–0.38***

0.56***

0.40***

–0.45***

Note. *** indicates p < 0.001.

Figure 1 Final Model for Asian-Indians Linking Model Minority Stereotype, DeprivationStereotype, Hostile Prejudice, Benevolent Prejudice, and Overall Favorability.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Discussion

One of the important findings from the two preliminary studies related to the

content and strength of contemporary cultural stereotypes and prejudicial feelings

associated with African-Americans and Indians. The specific items describing

stereotypes associated with African-Americans in this study were found to parallel

and replicate prior studies (Devine, 1989; Devine & Elliot, 2000; Lepore & Brown,

2000). Characteristics reported in this study such as poor, aggressive, criminal,

uneducated, lazy, etc. have been noted by past researchers as well. Unlike other

studies, the current study also included socio-cultural descriptors within the scope

of stereotypes. Therefore, added descriptors such as drug users, ghettos, diseased,

and welfare recipients were seen as part of the cultural stereotypes associated with

African-Americans.

The current findings reveal that contemporary cultural stereotypes associated

with Indians are more similar to those reported by Naidoo (1986) that traditional,

family-oriented, quiet, and polite were common stereotypes associated with this

out-group. There are some striking similarities between cultural stereotypes of

Asian-Indians and those related to Asian-Americans, especially as they relate to

model minority stereotypes such as hard-working, passive, family-oriented, and

intelligent (Lee, 1996; Wu, 2002). However, although Asian-Americans are generally

perceived to be well-to-do, Indians were seen as lacking basic necessities such as

education, wealth, health, and hygiene. These characteristics were reflected in the

‘‘Deprivation Stereotype’’ associated with this group.

In terms of overall favorability, the findings from the thermometer ratings revealed

that the most favorable feelings were expressed toward White-Americans, followed

by African-Americans, and least for Asian-Indians. One possible explanation for

this finding is that it reveals in-group superiority as explained by the social identity

Criminalitystereotype

Deprivation stereotype

Hostile prejudice

Overall favorability

Benevolent prejudice

0.83***

0.40***

0.70***

0.44***

–0.42**

Note. * indicates p < 0.05, ** indicates p < 0.01 and *** indicates p < 0.001.

–0.21***

–0.27*

–0.17*

Figure 2 Final Model for African-Americans Linking Criminality Stereotype,Deprivation Stereotype, Hostile Prejudice, Benevolent Prejudice, and OverallFavorability.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

theory (Crocker & Major, 1989; Fein & Spencer, 1997; Tajfel, 1969; Tajfel & Turner,

1979). Given traditional hostility of White-Americans toward African-Americansin the United States, it is hardly surprising that ratings for African-Americans

were lower than those for White-Americans. However, it is to be noted that thereare less favorable ratings for Asian-Indians as compared to African-Americans.

The current findings suggest that perhaps Asian-Indians are perceived to be of alower status than African-Americans. It might also suggest that when there is lesser

shared history among groups, lesser degree of direct contact, and lesser amountof information available about out-groups, there might be more unfavorable feelingstoward the out-group.

In the current study, significantly higher levels of hostile prejudice were expressedtoward African-Americans as compared to Asian-Indians. These findings were

consistent with existing literature on newer forms of racism such as symbolic racismwhere anti-Black sentiment can manifest itself as ‘‘fear, avoidance and a desire for

distance, anger, distaste, disgust, contempt, apprehension, unease, or simple dislike’’(Sears, 1988, p. 70). Similarly, aversive forms of racism may take the forms of

discomfort, uneasiness, disgust, and even fear (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).In contrast, ‘‘Benevolent prejudice’’ included different types of feelings such as

pity, sadness, and guilt as compared to hostile prejudice. Significantly higher levels of

benevolent prejudice were expressed toward Asian-Indians as compared to African-Americans. The fact that Asian-Indians received the lowest overall favorability scores

appears to be inconsistent with the higher levels of sympathy they received fromWhite participants. However, this finding supports recent research on prejudice that

suggests that benevolent prejudice also stems from notions of in-group superiorityand perceived lack of competence of out-groups (Glick & Fiske, 2001).

The findings from this study are more supportive of the SCM than the tripartitemodel of attitudinal consistency. That is, the relationships among stereotypes,

prejudice, and overall favorability appear to be more complex than the tripartitemodel would suggest. According to the SCM (Fiske et al., 2002), hostile prejudice isexpressed toward groups that are seen as being neither warm nor competent

(competitive subordinates). This hostile prejudice is consistent with traditionalracist perceptions of people of color as lazy and undeserving of sympathy. Further,

this model explains that the benevolent prejudice is expressed toward groupswho are perceived as being warm but incompetent (Fiske et al., 2002). Feelings of

sympathy are a form of paternalistic prejudice expressed toward out-groups seen asnon-competitive and inferior.

Whereas Fiske and colleagues indicate that perceived competence and warmth arethe main factors influencing prejudice, the current study brings to light the role ofdeprivation in explaining benevolent prejudice. When groups are seen as deprived

of social opportunities such as education, civility, and good health, it could lead tosympathetic feelings toward the groups. In other words, these findings could be

interpreted to mean that some groups could be seen as competent and inherentlysociable but still caught in a social system that does not provide the opportunities for

them to express their talents and skills. Under such circumstances, societal factors


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

rather than individual deficiencies might be seen as causal attributions for the

failures of out-groups, leading to feeling of pity for these groups. However, it shouldbe noted that although deprivation perception increases benevolent prejudice, such

benevolence increases hostility and reduces overall favorability toward the group.The findings from this study support research by Ho, Sanbonmatsu, and Akimoto

(2002) who demonstrate that beliefs about availability of social opportunities and thetype of social structure play a very important role in determining whether group

successes and failures are ascribed to individual (internal) or societal (external)factors. Specifically, these researchers explain that a society such as the United Statesis seen as providing plenty of opportunities for success with little effort and initiative.

To the extent that Indian society is construed as being rigid in its social structureand providing fewer opportunities for social mobility because of limiting social

hierarchies, the perceived low status for Indians may not be attributed to lack ofcompetence but to the perceived lack of opportunities for success within the Indian

society.The findings of this research have many important implications for intercultural

communication scholars, educators, and practitioners. This research calls for greatercultural sensitivity from media practitioners while producing stories about out-groups. Journalistic education often focuses on using a balanced approach in writing

news stories by highlighting both positive and negative aspects about the culture orgroup that is covered. However, media producers should understand that even

seemingly positive depictions of an out-group can increase hostile prejudice andreduce overall favorable attitudes if the out-group is presented in uni-dimensional

ways without much depth and diversity. Presenting an out-group as ‘‘exotic’’ and‘‘different’’ only serves to further alienate audiences from the out-group, leading

to lower overall favorability toward the out-group. Additionally, journalists often useanecdotal case stories depicting African-American families to illustrate social issues

such as poverty, disease, crime, and unemployment. The current research suggeststhat the portrayals of deprivation in mainstream media help maintain notions ofimperialistic White-American superiority.

Applying the findings to interpersonal communication contexts, it is important tobe conscious of the ways in which the use of stereotype-based information processing

rather than individual-based information processing while communicating with amember of an out-group. Communications of dominant White-Americans with

African-American out-group members could reflect stereotypical perceptions aboutcriminality, athleticism, musical talent, poverty, etc. at the cognitive level and feelings

of fear, discomfort, and dislike at the affective level. Similarly, interactions withIndians, say for White-American customers to call-center workers in India, couldrevolve around stereotypes such as passivity, politeness, poverty, lack of education,

etc. at the cognitive level and feelings of sadness and pity at the affective level. Thecurrent study challenges the simplistic conceptualization of prejudice as only negative

feelings by illustrating that benevolent feelings such as guilt and pity are positivelycorrelated with contemptuous prejudice and negatively correlated with favorability

toward out-groups.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

The current project contributes to our understanding of intercultural commu-

nication in several ways. First, it identifies the nature and strength of contemporary

stereotypes of African-Americans and Asian-Indians. Second, it presents benevolent

prejudice as complementary and consistent with traditional forms of hostile

prejudice toward out-groups in intercultural contexts. Third, it proposes that

feelings toward members of out-groups in inter-racial communication contexts need

not be polarized as negative-positive but could be mixed such that hostile prejudice

and benevolent prejudice can co-exist comfortably.In sum, the findings did not support the popular tripartite model of attitudinal

consistency. Rather, the present research supported and further clarified the SCM

by suggesting that benevolent prejudice is expressed toward out-groups that are

perceived to be competent but lacking in societal support and opportunities to

succeed. Hostile and benevolent feelings were both seen as contributing

simultaneously to unfavorable attitudes toward out-groups.

References

Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Oxford, UK: Addison-Wesley.Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: Evidence

for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 91(4), 652–661.Asch, S. E. (1946). Forming impressions of personality. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology,

41, 248–290.Bodenhausen, G. V., & Wyer, R. S. (1985). Effects of stereotypes in decision making and

information-processing strategies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48,

267–282.Cattell, R. B. (1966). The scree test for the number of factors. Multivariate Behavioral Research, 1,

245–276.Chaiken, S., & Trope, Y. (1999). Dual-process theories in social psychology. New York, NY: Guilford.Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The self-protective properties of

stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (2000). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy

revisited. In C. Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings. Key readings in social

psychology (pp. 86–99). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Dovidio, J. F., Esses, V. M., Beach, K. R., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). The role of affect in determining

intergroup behavior: The case of willingness to engage in intergroup affect. In D. M. Mackie &

E. R. Smith (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions to social groups

(pp. 153–171). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.Dovidio, J. F., Evans, N., & Tyler, R. B. (1986). Racial stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive

representations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, 22–37.Eckes, T. (2002). Paternalistic and envious gender stereotypes: Testing predictions from the

stereotype content model. Sex Roles, 47, 99–114.Esses, V. M., Jackson, L. M., & Armstrong, T. L. (1998). Intergroup competition and attitudes

toward immigrants and immigration: An instrumental model of group conflict. Journal of

Social Issues, 54, 699–724.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Fazio, R. H., & Hilden, L. E. (2001). Emotional reactions to a seemingly prejudiced response:The role of automatically activated racial attitudes and motivation to control prejudicedreactions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, 538–549.

Fein, S., & Spencer, S. J. (1997). Prejudice as self-image maintenance: Affirming the self throughderogating others. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 73(1), 31–44.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content:Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model: Ten years later. In S. Chaiken& Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). New York, NY:Guilford Press.

Fiske, S. T., & Neuberg, S. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from category-basedto individuating processes: Influences of information and motivation on attention andinterpretation. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 23, 1–74.

Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (1991). Social cognition (2nd ed.). New York, NY: McGraw-Hill.Fiske, S. T., Xu, J., Cuddy, A. C., & Glick, P. (1999). (Dis)respecting versus (dis)liking: Status and

interdependence predict ambivalent stereotypes of competence and warmth. Journal of SocialIssues, 55, 473–489.

Gaertner, S. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1986). The aversive form of racism. In J. F. Dovidio &S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism. Orlando, FL: Academic Press.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The Ambivalent Sexism Inventory: Differentiating hostile andbenevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512.

Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2001). An ambivalent alliance: Hostile and benevolent sexism ascomplementary justifications for gender inequality. American Psychologist, 56, 109–118.

Ho, E. A., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., & Akimoto, S. A. (2002). The effects of comparative status onsocial stereotypes: How the perceived success of some persons affects the stereotypes of others.Social Cognition, 20, 36–57.

Hu, L., & Bentler, P. M. (1999). Cutoff Criteria for Fit Indexes in Covariance Structure Analysis:Conventional Criteria Versus. Structural Equation Modeling, 6, 1–55.

Hugenberg, K., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2003). Facing prejudice: Implicit prejudice and theperception of facial threat. Psychological Science, 14, 640–643.

Jones, R. A., & Ashmore, R. D. (1973). The structure of intergroup perception: Categoriesand dimensions in views of ethnic groups and adjectives used in stereotype research. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 25, 428–438.

Kovel, J. (1970). White racism: A psychohistory. New York, NY: Pantheon Books.Lee, S. J. (1996). Unraveling the ‘‘model minority’’ stereotype: Listening to Asian American youth.

New York, NY: Teachers College Press.Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (2000). Category and stereotype activation: Is prejudice inevitable?

In C. Stangor (Ed.), Stereotypes and prejudice: Essential readings. Key readings in socialpsychology (pp. 119–137). Philadelphia, PA: Psychology Press.

LeVine, R. A., & Campbell, D. T. (1972). Ethnocentrism: Theories of conflict, ethnic attitudes, andgroup behavior. Oxford, UK: John Wiley and Sons.

Linville, P. W., Fischer, G. W., & Salovey, P. (1989). Perceived distributions of the characteristicsof in-group and out-group members: Empirical evidence and a computer simulation. Journal ofPersonality and Social Psychology, 57, 165–188.

Lippmann, W. (1922). Public Opinion. New York, NY: Macmillan.Macrae, C. N., Milne, A. B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (1994). Stereotypes as energy-saving

devices: A peek inside the cognitive toolbox. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66(1),37–47.

Naidoo, J. C. (1986). Value conflicts for South Asian women in multicultural Canada. In L. H.Ekstrand (Ed.), Ethnic minorities and immigrants in a cross-cultural perspective. TheNetherlands: Swets North America/Berwyn.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

Oakes, P., & Turner, J. C. (1986). Distinctiveness and the salience of social category memberships:Is there an automatic perceptual bias towards novelty? European Journal of Social Psychology,16(4), 325–344.

Rosenberg, M. J., & Hovland, C. I. (1960). Cognitive, affective, and behavioral components ofattitudes. In C. I. Hovland & M. J. Rosenberg (Eds.), Attitude organization and change: Ananalysis of consistency amongst attitude components (pp. 1–14). New Haven, CT: Yale UniversityPress.

Sears, D. O. (1988). Symbolic racism. In P. Katz & D. Taylor (Eds.), Eliminating racism: Profiles incontroversy (pp. 53–84). New York, NY: Plenum Press.

Sherif, M., & Sherif, C. W. (1953). Groups in harmony and tension. New York, NY: Harper & Row.Simpson, G. E., & Yinger, J. M. (1958). Racial and cultural minorities: An analysis of prejudice and

discrimination (Rev. ed.). Oxford, UK: Harper.Snyder, M., & Miene, P. K. (1994). Stereotyping of elderly: A functional approach. British Journal of

Psychology, 33(1), 63–82.Stangor, C., & Lange, J. E. (1994). Mental representations of social groups: Advances in

understanding stereotypes and stereotyping. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimentalsocial psychology (Vol. 26, pp. 357–416). San Diego, CA: Academic Press.

Stroebe, W., & Insko, C. (1989). Stereotype, prejudice, and discrimination: Changing conceptionsin theory and research. In D. Bar-Tal, C. F. Graumann, A. W. Kruglanski, & W. Stroebe (Eds.),Stereotyping and prejudice (pp. 3–34). New York, NY: Springer.

Swim, J. K., & Miller, D. L. (1999). White guilt: Its antecedents and consequences for attitudestoward affirmative action. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25(4), 500–514.

Swim, J. K., & Stangor, C. (Eds.). (1998). Prejudice: The target’s perspective. San Diego, CA:Academic Press.

Tajfel, H. (1969). Cognitive aspects of prejudice. Journal of Social Issues, 25, 79–97.Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. C. (1979). An integrative theory of intergroup conflict. In W. Austin &

S. Worchel (Eds.), Social cognition: Perspectives on everyday understanding (pp. 113–140).New York, NY: Academic Press.

Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing.In E. T. Higgins, P. Herman, & M. P. Zanna (Eds.), Social cognition: The Ontario symposium(Vol. 1, pp. 89–134). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.

Wu, F. H. (2002). Yellow: Race in America beyond Black and White. New York, NY: Basic Books.


Dow

nloa

ded

by [

Was

hing

ton

Stat

e U

nive

rsity

Lib

rari

es ]

at 2

2:11

24

Nov

embe

r 20

14

testing the cognitive-affective consistency model of intercultural attitudes: do stereotypical...

Documents