an investigation of the link between attributional judgments and stereotype-based judgments

European Journal of Social Psycholo`y

Eur[ J[ Soc[ Psychol[ 29\ 440Ð457 "1999#

Received 05 October 0888

Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ Accepted 06 January 1999

An investigation of the link betweenattributional judgments andstereotype-based judgments

LUCY JOHNSTON*, MICHAEL BRISTOW andNICHOLAS LOVEUniversity of Canterbury, UK

Abstract

Three experiments investiàted the relationship between the attributions made for stereotype!

relevant behavior and stereotype!based jud`ments[ In Experiment 0 participants were pre!

sented with a short scenario describin` a sin`le stereotypic behavior and were ìven either a

situational or a dispositional explanation for the behavior\ before evaluatin` both the tarèt

and the `roup as a whole on stereotype!based dimensions[ As predicted\ participants ìven a

situational explanation for the stereotypic behavior described the tarèt and the `roup in less

stereotype!based terms than did baseline participants[ In Experiments 1 and 2 participants

were presented with a short scenario describin` either a sin`le stereotypic or counter!ster!

eotypic behavior but were asked to provide an explanation for the behavior\ rather than bein`

ìven one[ As predicted\ stereotypic behavior was attributed more stron`ly to dispositional

than situational factors and counter!stereotypic behavior more stron`ly to situational than

dispositional factors[ No overall moderation of `roup!based beliefs relative to baseline was

seen in either experiment[ Correlations between the attributions and stereotype!based jud`!

ments did\ however\ show a relationship between the stren`th of the attributions mde for the

behaviors and stereotype!based jud`ments[ Implications for the moderation of stereotype!

based jud`ments are discussed[ Copyri`ht Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[

Social stereotypes are characteristically resistant to change\ even in the face of dis!con_rming information "Allport\ 0843^ Higgins + Bargh\ 0876^ Sherman\ Judd\ +Park\ 0878#[ The cognitive expedience "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^ Macrae\Bodenhausen + Milne\ 0883# and social identity bene_ts "Abrams + Hogg\ 0874#which accrue to individuals as a consequence of stereotype use motivate the main!tenance of such beliefs "see Hamilton + Sherman\ 0883^ Johnston\ 0885#[ Socialperceivers are quick to dismiss\ or explain away\ stereotype!inconsistent information"Anderson\ Lepper\ + Ross\ 0879^ Evett\ Devine\ Hirt + Price\ 0883^ Pyszczynski +Greenberg\ 0876#\ especially at the group level[ Individual members of stereotyped

� Correspondence to] Lucy Johnston\ Department of Psychology\ University of Canterbury\ Private Bag3799\ Christchurch\ New Zealand[ E!mail] psyc279Ýpsyc[canterbury[ac[nz

441 Lucy Johnston\ Michael Bristow and Nicholas Love

Copyright Þ 1999 John Wiley + Sons\ Ltd[ Eur[ J[ Soc[ Psychol[ 29\ 440Ð457 "1999#

groups who perform discon_rming behaviors are judged in a non!stereotypic manner"Krueger + Rothbart\ 0877^ Locksley\ Borgida\ Brekke\ + Hepburn\ 0879^ Macrae\Shepherd\ + Milne\ 0881# but this non!stereotypic perception does not typicallygeneralize to the target group as a whole[ Even when individual group membersbehave in a counter!stereotypic manner\ the group is still perceived in stereotypicterms[

One explanation o}ered for the lack of generalization from the perception of theindividual in non!stereotypic terms to perceptions of the group is based on theattributions perceivers make for counter!stereotypic behavior[ Hewstone "0878# pro!posed an attributional model of stereotype change which predicted that encounteringcounter!stereotypic behavior would only lead to moderation of group!based ster!eotypic beliefs if that behavior was attributed to stable dispositional factors of theactor who was perceived to be a typical group exemplar[ An internal\ stable attributionindicates that the counter!stereotypic act is representative of the actor|s usual behaviorso the actor is perceived in a non!stereotypic manner "Krueger + Rothbart\ 0877^Locksley et al[\ 0879^ Macrae et al[\ 0881#[ Since the actor is perceived to be typicalof the target group\ their behavior is considered to be representative of other membersof the target group and so a non!stereotypic perception of the target individual shouldbe generalized to the group as a whole\ resulting in moderation of group!based beliefs[In contrast\ if the actor is considered to be an atypical group exemplar\ generalizationshould not occur as the individual|s behavior is not considered to be representative ofother members of the target group[ A situational attribution for a counter!stereotypicbehavior also leads to the prediction of no generalization to group!based perceptions\as the behavior is not considered to be predictive of the target|s usual behavior"Hewstone\ 0878^ Jackson\ Sullivan + Hodge\ 0882#[

Wilder\ Simon\ and Faith "0885# recently provided support for predictions derivedfrom Hewstone|s "0878# model[ They provided participants with a single example ofcounter!stereotypic behavior from a group exemplar who was described as either atypical or atypical group member[ Participants were also provided with either adispositional or situational attribution for the behavior[ The target group was thenevaluated on stereotypic dimensions[ Evaluation of the target group was less stereo!type!based than that of control\ no information\ participants only when the exemplarwas considered to be typical of the target group and the behavior had been given adispositional attribution[ When the same behavior was attributed to situational factorsor the actor was an atypical group exemplar there was no moderation of group!basedstereotypic beliefs[ For counter!stereotypic behavior to moderate stereotype!basedbeliefs\ perceivers must attribute the behavior to dispositional factors and also perceivethe actor to be a typical member of the target group[

While attention in stereotype change research has\ understandably\ focused onthe impact of counter!stereotypic information and the attributions made for suchinformation\ an intriguing\ counter!intuitive\ alternative route to stereotype mod!eration has been ignored[ Stereotypic behavior is typically attributed to dispositionalfactors "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^ Duncan\ 0865^ Evett et al[\ 0883^ Jackson et al[\0882^ Macrae + Shepherd\ 0878# which bolsters stereotype!based beliefs about thetarget group and its members[ If stereotypic behavior were attributed to situationalfactors\ however\ moderation of group!based beliefs might result[ If perceiversbelieved that individuals performed stereotypic behaviors because of situationalin~uences rather than because of personal characteristics they may be less likely to


Attributional jud`ments and stereotype!based jud`ments 442

endorse stereotypic beliefs of the target and the group to which they belong[ Considersex!based stereotypic beliefs\ for example[ Social role theory "Eagly\ 0876^ Eagly +Ste}en\ 0873# argues that sex!based stereotypes developed as a consequence of theunequal distribution of men and women into di}erent social roles\ not as a conse!quence of fundamental di}erences between men and women[ That is\ sex!basedperceptions are argued to be the result of situational or role constraints rather thandispositional factors[ Making perceivers aware of the situational causes of stereotypicbehavior may reduce stereotype!based perceptions\ just as the reversal of roles seesthe disappearance of gender!based stereotypes "Eagly + Wood\ 0871#[

Neither Hewstone|s "0878# model nor Wilder et al[|s "0885# research consideredstereotypic behaviors and whether the attributions made for such behaviors couldin~uence the endorsement of stereotype!based beliefs[ This possibility is the focus ofthe current research[

EXPERIMENT 0

In our _rst experiment we followed the procedures of Wilder et al[ "0885# but used astereotypic rather than counter!stereotypic target behavior[ Participants were pre!sented with a brief scenario of a female performing a sex!stereotypic behavior beforethey were asked to evaluate both the individual and women in general on a relevantstereotypic dimension[ Half of the participants were given a dispositional explanationfor the target|s behavior and half a situational explanation[ It was predicted thatparticipants who were given a situational explanation for the stereotypic behaviorwould evaluate women less strongly on stereotype!based dimensions than those givena dispositional explanation[0

Method

Participants and Desi`n

Fifty!three students volunteered to participate in a single factor "explanation] intern!al:external# between!subjects design study[ An additional 14 students provided base!line data[

Materials

A short scenario in which a female behaved in a passive manner was developed^behaving in a passive or submissive manner is considered to be characteristic offemales "e[g[ Hudak\ 0882^ Locksley et al[\ 0879#[ A female target was described aswaiting in a queue for some minutes to use an automatic bank teller machine[ Whenthe person in front of her had _nished using the machine a man\ not previously in the

0 In each of the three studies approximately 29 per cent of participants were male[ In none of the studies\however\ was there any e}ect of sex of participants on any of the dependent measures so this factor willnot be considered further[



queue\ stepped up to use the machine[ The target was described as stepping silentlyback from the machine and allowing the intruder to use it uninterrupted[ Pilot testingestablished that this behavior was considered to be passive[ Manipulation of theexplanations for this behavior followed that used successfully by Wilder et al[ "0885#[In the internal explanation condition the following sentence was added to the end ofthe scenario] {This reaction is typical of Donna\ that|s the way she is[| In the externalexplanation condition the following sentence] {This reaction is not typical of Donnabut she was in a hurry that day\ her friend was waiting for her in the car| was added[

Procedure

Participants were tested individually[ They were asked to take part in a short studyinvolving the explanation of everyday events[ Participants were randomly allocatedto experimental conditions[ They were asked to read the scenario and then to answerthe questions which followed[ As a check of the explanation manipulation\ par!ticipants answered two questions about the cause of the target|s behavior] the extentto which it was due to situational factors "{To what extent do you think Donna|sbehavior was caused by the situation she was in<|#\ and the extent to which it was dueto dispositional factors "{To what extent do you think Donna|s behavior was causedby her personality<|#[ For the stereotype!based evaluations\ participants were askedto rate the assertiveness of both the speci_c target individual and of women ingeneral[ All questions were answered on 6!point scales "0*{not at all|^ 6*{extremely|#[Baseline participants simply rated the assertiveness of women in general[ Participantswere thanked for their participation and debriefed[

Results and Discussion

Results for each dependent measure are shown in Table 0[ Higher scores indicatestronger attributions and more stereotypic ratings[ The assertiveness ratings havebeen reverse scored so that higher scores represent more stereotype!based judgments[

Manipulation Check

A 1"explanation] internal:external# × 1"attribution] dispositional:situational#ANOVA with repeated measures on the second factor yielded a signi_cant interaction

Table 0[ Attribution judgments and ratings of assertiveness as a function of explanation type

Explanation] Internal External Baseline

Attributions] Situational 2[04a 3[15b

Dispositional 4[54c 3[45b

Assertiveness] Target 4[58a 3[00b

Group 2[62cd 2[48d 3[94c

Note] For each measure "attributions^ assertiveness#\ items with a di}erent subscript di}ered signi_cantlyfrom one another[



between explanation and attribution\ F"0\40#�09[47\ p³ 9[90[ Post!hoc tests "Tukey\p³ 9[94# showed that\ as expected\ when participants were given an internal expla!nation for the behavior dispositional attributions were higher than situational attri!butions "Ms�4[54 versus 2[04# and dispositional attributions were higher than whenparticipants were given an external explanation for the behavior "Ms�4[54 versus3[45#[ When participants were given an external explanation for the behavior therewas no di}erence between dispositional and situational attributions "Ms�3[15 versus3[45# but situational attributions were higher than when participants were given aninternal explanation for the behavior "Ms�3[15 versus 2[04#[

It is possible that the tendency of perceivers to o}er dispositional explanations forthe behavior of others "the fundamental attribution error^ Ross\ 0866#\ especially forstereotypic behavior "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^ Duncan\ 0865^ Evett et al[\ 0883^Jackson et al[\ 0882^ Macrae + Shepherd\ 0878# resulted in relatively strong dis!positional ratings even when an external explanation for the stereotypic behavior wasprovided[ Alternatively\ the speci_c external explanation provided in this study mayhave been somewhat ambiguous[ The explanation followed that used by Wilder et al["0885# for counter!stereotypic behaviors\ describing the actor as under time pressure[We expected our participants to see the target as not normally behaving in this passive"stereotypic# manner but on this occasion doing so because she did not have time toengage in quarrels with the intruder and delay herself further[ Being pressed for timecould\ however\ also lead to a dispositional explanation for the passive behavior[Participants could conclude that if the target was prepared to stand back and let theintruder intervene even when she was in a hurry then she must be really passive[ Thisambiguity in the external explanation may explain the equally strong situational anddispositional attributions for the target|s behavior in this condition[1

The di}erence in the strength of the situational attributions between the internaland external conditions does\ however\ indicate that our manipulation resulted inrelatively stronger situational attributions in this condition[

Stereotype!based Evaluation

A 1"explanation] internal:external# × 1"target] individual:group# ANOVA with anisolated control condition yielded a signi_cant interaction between explanation andattribution\ F"0\40#�06[11\ p³ 9[9990[ Post!hoc tests showed ratings for the indi!vidual actor to be more stereotypic "less assertive# in the internal than the externalconditions "Ms�4[58 versus 3[00^ Tukey\ p³ 9[94#[ An actor was judged to bemore stereotypic when the stereotypic behavior she performed was attributed todispositional causes then when the same behavior was attributed to situational causes[Ratings for the group did not di}er between the internal and external conditions"Ms�2[62 versus 2[48# but comparisons with the control condition revealed thatthere was no di}erence between the ratings of assertiveness in the internal explanationand the control conditions but a marginally signi_cant di}erence "p³ 9[97# betweenthe external and the control conditions "Ms�2[48 versus 3[94#[ Participants givenan external explanation for the stereotypic behavior rated the target group as lessstereotypic "more assertive# than did baseline\ control participants[ Making perceivers

1 We are grateful to Leonel Garcia!Marques for bringing this alternative explanation to our attention[



aware of situational constraints on the stereotypic behavior reduced the strength ofstereotype!based judgments of the target group[ The impact of the provision of acompelling external explanation remains to be tested[ Our data show that o}ering anexternal explanation that reduces "rather than completely overrules# a dispositionalattribution for a stereotypic behavior is su.cient to result in stereotype moderation[These _ndings support our contention that moderation of social stereotypes can occuras a result of situational attributions being given to stereotypic behaviors\ as well asfrom dispositional attributions being given to counter!stereotypic behaviors "Hew!stone\ 0878^ Wilder et al[\ 0885#[

Experiment 0 and the studies of Wilder et al[ "0885# did not\ however\ consider therelationship between the strength of attributions made for stereotype!relevantbehavior and stereotype!based judgments[ Experiments 1 and 2 investigated thisrelationship more fully[ In each experiment participants were presented with a scenariodescribing an individual group member performing either a stereotypic or counter!stereotypic behavior[ In contrast to Experiment 0\ participants were not providedwith an explanation for the critical behavior but were asked to rate the extent towhich the behavior was a consequence of both situational and dispositional causes[In addition participants rated both the individual exemplar and the target group onstereotype!relevant dimensions[ Although our focus was on stereotypic behaviors\ itwas decided to include counter!stereotypic scenarios to investigate whether the e}ectsof attributions on stereotype!based judgments reported by Wilder et al[ "0885# werereplicated when participants were not explicitly provided with explanations for thetarget behavior[

Past research has shown perceivers to attribute stereotypic behavior to dispositionaland counter!stereotypic behavior to situational causes "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^Duncan\ 0865^ Evett et al[\ 0883^ Jackson et al[\ 0882^ Macrae + Shepherd\ 0878#[These attributions are the opposite of those predicted to result in moderation ofstereotype!based beliefs[ Perceivers may then be unlikely\ unless speci_cally directed\to make those attributions predicted to lead to moderation of stereotype!basedbeliefs[ It is predicted\ however\ that there will be a relationship between the relativestrength of the attributions made and evaluation of the individual exemplar and thetarget group[ The more strongly a stereotypic behavior is attributed to situationalrelative to dispositional causes the less strongly it is predicted will the individual beevaluated in stereotype!based terms[ Conversely for counter!stereotypic behavior\ themore strongly the behavior is attributed to dispositional relative to situational causesthe less strongly it is predicted will the individual be evaluated in stereotype!basedterms[ Importantly the issue of generalization from evaluations of the individualtarget to evaluations of the target group as a whole will also be considered[ Hewstone"0878# and Wilder et al[ "0885# emphasized that generalization from perceptions ofthe individual to perceptions of the group as a whole depended on the exemplar beingseen as a typical group member[ No speci_c information about target typicality wasprovided in the present experimental scenarios and although there has been somedebate in the stereotype change literature about whether performing counter!ster!eotypic behavior is su.cient for an individual to be considered atypical when groupmembership is explicitly stated "Johnston + Hewstone\ 0881^ Kunda + Oleson\ 0884\0886# we predicted that actors performing counter!stereotypic behaviors would beconsidered less typical of the target group than those performing stereotypic behaviors"Johnston + Hewstone\ 0881#[ Consequently\ it is also predicted that generalization



from the individual to the group will be stronger when the actor performs a stereotypicthan a counter!stereotypic behavior[ The perceptions of and attributions made aboutan individual performing a stereotypic behavior are\ then\ predicted to have greaterimpact on group!based judgments than those of an individual performing a counter!stereotypic behavior[

EXPERIMENT 1

Participants were presented with a brief scenario describing a female actor performingeither a stereotypic or counter!stereotypic behavior[ Participants rated the strengthof situational and dispositional explanations for the behavior and evaluated both theindividual and the group on sex!based dimensions[

Method


Seventy students volunteered to participant in the experiment[ A single factor "scen!ario] stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# between!subjects design was used[ An additional04 students provided baseline data[

Materials

For the stereotypic condition the same passive scenario used in Experiment 0 wasemployed[ A counter!stereotypic\ assertive\ version of the scenario was also developed[In this version when the man not previously in the queue stepped up to use theautomatic teller machine the female target forcefully informed him that he shouldjoin the end of the queue and pushed her way forward to ensure that she used themachine before him[ Pilot testing established that the two versions of the scenariodi}ered in terms of perceived assertiveness[ No manipulation of attributions for thebehavior were included in this study[

Procedure

The same procedure as in Experiment 0 was followed[


Means for all dependent measures are shown in Table 1[ The assertiveness ratingswere again reverse scored so that higher scores represent more stereotype!based "lessassertive# evaluations[



Table 1[ Attribution index and ratings of assertiveness as a function of scenario "E1#

Scenario] Assertive Passive Baseline"counter!stereotypic# "Stereotypic#

Attribution index 9[318a −1[465b

Assertiveness] Target 1[21a 4[58b

Group 3[95c 2[46c 3[19c

Note] For each measure "attribution index^ assertiveness#\ items with a di}erent subscript di}erent sig!ni_cantly from one another[

Attribution Ratin`s

An index of the relative strength of situational and dispositional attributions fortarget behavior was calculated for each participant by subtracting the rating fordispositional causes from that for situational causes "Wittenbrink\ Gist\ + Hilton\0886#[ A positive index represents stronger attribution of the behavior to situationalthan dispositional factors and a negative index stronger attribution of the behaviorto dispositional than situational factors[ A single factor "scenario] stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# ANOVA revealed a signi_cant e}ect\ F"0\55#�42[53\ p³ 9[9990[ Theindex was higher in the counter!stereotypic than the stereotypic condition "Ms�9[318versus −1[465#[

Consistent with past research "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^ Duncan\ 0865^ Evettet al[\ 0883^ Jackson et al[\ 0882^ Macrae + Shepherd\ 0878# the stereotypic behaviorwas attributed more strongly to dispositional than to situational factors and thecounter!stereotypic behavior more strongly to situational than dispositional factors[Only 0 participant "2[9 per cent# in the stereotypic scenario condition had a positiveindex indicating stronger attributions to situational than dispositional causes and 09participants "17[5 per cent# in the counter!stereotypic scenario condition had a nega!tive index indicating stronger attribution to dispositional than situational causes[ Theproportion of participants showing the unexpected pattern of attributions was lowin each condition but noticeably greater in the counter!stereotypic condition[ Thisdi}erence is consistent with both the bias toward dispositional attributions "Ross\0866# in explaining the behavior of others and with evidence that dispositional butnot situational inferences occur spontaneously "Carlston + Skowronski\ 0883^ Lupfer\Clark\ + Hutcherson\ 0889^ Smith + Miller\ 0872^ Uleman\ Newman\ + Moskowitz\in press#[ Overall\ however\ the pattern of attributions is more consistent with main!tenance than moderation of stereotype!based beliefs[

Stereotype!based Ratin`s

A 1"scenario] stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# × 1"target] individual:group#ANOVA with repeated measures on the second factor and an isolated control con!dition revealed a main e}ect of scenario\ F"0\56#�40[04\ p³ 9[9990\ which wasquali_ed by a signi_cant interaction between scenario and target\ F"0\56#�069[85\p³ 9[9990[ Ratings of the individual|s assertiveness were less stereotypic "more assert!ive# in the counter!stereotypic than stereotypic scenario condition "Ms�1[21 versus4[58^ Tukey\ p³ 9[94#[ When the individual behaved in a counter!stereotypic manner



she was judged to be less stereotypic "more assertive# than when she behaved in astereotypic manner[ There was no signi_cant di}erence in the ratings of the groupacross scenarios "Ms�3[95 and 2[46#[ Comparisons with the control group alsorevealed no di}erences between group!based ratings in either experimental conditionin comparison with baseline ratings "M�3[19#[

Consistent with past research\ ratings of the target individual re~ected her behavior^the target in the assertive scenario was judged to be more assertive than the target inthe passive scenario "Krueger + Rothbart\ 0877^ Locksley et al[\ 0879^ Macrae et al[\0881#[ There was no di}erence\ however\ between the ratings of women in generaland the baseline ratings^ women were still evaluated in a stereotype!based manner\even after reading the counter!stereotypic scenario[ Of interest was whether thoseparticipants who had made the reverse pattern of attributions showed a reduction instereotype!based judgments of the target group\ as would be expected from the resultsof Experiment 0 and those of Wilder et al[ "0885#[ The low numbers of participantsshowing the reverse pattern of attributions\ especially in the stereotypic condition\made statistical analysis di.cult\ but it is interesting to note that mean assertivenessratings for the group were more stereotypic in the stereotypic condition than forcontrol participants "Ms�2[99 versus 3[19# but not for the counter!stereotypic con!ditions "Ms�3[19 versus 3[19#[

Relationship between Attribution Ratin`s and Stereotype!based Ratin`s

To investigate the relationship between the attributions made for the target|s behaviorand stereotype!based ratings Pearson product moment correlations were computedbetween the attribution index and ratings of assertiveness of the target individual andthe group as a whole[ The correlations were computed separately for each scenariocondition and are shown in Table 2[

Table 2[ Correlation matrix for attributions and evaluations of target individuals and groups"E1 and 2#

Stereotype!basedevaluations of Stereotype!based

individual evaluations of group

STEREOTYPIC BEHAVIORS]Attribution Index E1 "n � 22# −9[29 −9[30�

E2 "n � 19# −9[36� −9[08Stereotype!based evaluations of E1 "n � 22# ¦9[27�individual target

E2 "n � 19# ¦9[40�COUNTER!STEREOTYPICBEHAVIORS]Attribution Index E1 "n � 24# −9[02 ¦9[91

E2 "n � 14# ¦9[59� ¦9[24Stereotype!based evaluations of E1 "n � 24# ¦9[14individual target

E2 "n � 14# ¦9[20

Note] � p ³ 9[94[



Stereotypic Scenario

There was a signi_cant negative correlation between the attribution index and ratingsof assertiveness for the group as a whole\ r"22#�−9[30\ p³ 9[94\ and a marginallysigni_cant correlation between the attribution index and ratings of assertiveness forthe individual target\ r"22#�−9[29\ p³ 9[09[ There was also a signi_cant correlationbetween assertiveness ratings of the individual and of the group as a whole\r"22#�9[27\ p³ 9[94[ The stronger the attribution of the stereotypic behavior tosituational relative to dispositional factors\ the less stereotypic "more assertive# boththe target and the group as a whole were perceived to be[ There was also generalizationfrom the target individual to the group as a whole\ the more assertive the individualwas judged to be\ the more assertive the group as whole was perceived to be[

Counter!stereotypic Scenario

None of the correlations between the attribution index and ratings of either the targetor the group|s assertiveness were signi_cant[ The correlation between assertivenessratings of the individual and of the group also was not signi_cant[

The correlations showed a relationship between the attributions made and stereo!type!based judgments when the target behavior was stereotypic[ Relatively strongersituational attributions for stereotypic behaviors were related to less stereotype!basedjudgments of the target individual and the group as a whole[ Such a relationship isconsistent with our contention that it is possible to modify stereotype!based beliefsthrough the presentation of stereotypic information[ Surprisingly there was no sig!ni_cant relationship between the attributions made for the counter!stereotypicbehavior and stereotype!based judgments of either the target individual or the groupas a whole\ contrary to the _ndings of Wilder et al[ "0885#[ When not explicitlyprovided with a dispositional attribution for counter!stereotypic behavior\ par!ticipants show no relationship between the attributions made for the behavior andstereotype!based judgments[ It is possible that the absence of any relationship betweenthe attributions made and the stereotype!based judgments in the counter!stereotypiccondition was because the actor was considered to be atypical of the target group[ Toinvestigate this a measure of perceived typicality was included in Experiment 2[

EXPERIMENT 2

Experiment 2 replicated Experiment 1 but used a di}erent target group and scenarioand included a measure of perceived typicality of the target group member[

Method


Forty!seven students volunteered to participant in the experiment[ A single factor"scenario] stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# between!subjects design was used[ Two



participants were subsequently omitted from the analyses for failing to follow theexperimental instructions[ An additional 14 students provided baseline data[

Materials

The target group and stereotypic behaviors used in this study were adapted fromMacrae et al[ "0881#[ The target group was male hairdressers\ the stereotype of whomincludes the belief that members of the group are not aggressive[ A scenario wasdeveloped about a male hairdresser leaving a nightclub with his girlfriend who waslurched at and chatted up by a drunken man[ In the stereotypic version of the scenariothe target simply ignored the man and walked on[ In the counter!stereotypic versionof the scenario the target swore loudly at the man\ pushed him away and walked onwith his girlfriend[ Pilot studies showed the latter scenario to be considered bothaggressive and counter!stereotypic of the target group and the former to be consideredboth non!aggressive and stereotypic of the target group "Macrae et al[\ 0881#[

Procedure

The procedure used was the same as in Experiments 0 and 1 except that participantswere asked to rate the aggressiveness rather than the assertiveness of the targetindividual and group[ In addition participants were asked to rate how typical theythought the target individual was of male hairdressers in general "0*{not at all|^ 6*{extremely|#[


Means for all dependent measures are shown in Table 3[ Aggressiveness ratings werereverse scored so that higher ratings represent more stereotypic "less aggressive#evaluations[

Table 3[ Attribution index and ratings of assertiveness as a function of scenario "E2#

Aggressive Non!aggressiveScenario] "counter!stereotypic# "stereotypic# Baseline

Attribution Index 9[13a −0[69b

Aggressiveness] Target 3[19a 4[62b

Group 4[07c 4[37c 3[73c

Typicality 1[85a 2[54b

Note] For each measure "attribution index^ assertiveness^ typicality#\ items with a di}erent subscript di}eredsigni_cantly from one another[



Attribution Ratin`s

An attribution index was calculated for each participant as in Experiment 1[ A single!factor "scenario] stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# ANOVA revealed a signi_cante}ect\ F"0\32#�00[82\ p³ 9[90[ The index was higher in the counter!stereotypic thanthe stereotypic condition "Ms�9[13 versus −0[69# indicating that the behavior wasattributed relatively more strongly to situational than dispositional factors in thecounter!stereotypic than the stereotypic scenario[

As in Experiment 1\ and consistent with past research "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^Duncan\ 0865^ Evett et al[\ 0883^ Jackson et al[\ 0882^ Macrae + Shepherd\ 0878#\ thecounter!stereotypic behavior was attributed more strongly to situational than todispositional factors and the stereotypic behavior was attributed more strongly todispositional than to situational factors[ As in Experiment 1\ only a few participantsin each scenario condition made the pattern of attributions for the target behaviorthat are predicted to lead to moderation of stereotype!based beliefs[ Eight participants"21[8 per cent# in the counter!stereotypic condition had a negative index\ indicatingstronger dispositional than situational attributions and 2 participants "04[9 per cent#in the stereotypic condition had a positive index indicating stronger situational thandispositional attributions[

Stereotype!based Ratin`s

A 1 "scenario]stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# × 1"target] individual:group# ANOVAwith repeated measures on the second factor and an isolated control condition revealeda main e}ect of scenario\ F"0\32#�4[31\ p³ 9[94\ which was quali_ed by a signi_cantinteraction between scenario and target\ F"0\32#�18[15\ p³ 9[9990[ Ratings of theindividual were less stereotypic "more aggressive# in the counter!stereotypic thanstereotypic condition "Ms�3[19 versus 4[64^ Tukey\ p³ 9[94#[ There was no di}er!ence\ however\ in ratings of the group across scenarios "Ms�4[37 versus 4[04#[Comparisons with the control group similarly revealed no di}erence between ratingsof the group in either experimental condition and the control\ baseline ratings"M�3[73#[ Stereotype!based judgments of the group were not in~uenced by thebehavior of the target individual[

Again the low numbers of participants showing the reverse pattern of attributionsprevented meaningful statistical analysis[ It was again noteworthy\ however\ that themean ratings of the group were less stereotypic than control participants in thestereotypic "Ms�3[56 versus 3[73# but not the counter!stereotypic "Ms�4[24 versus3[73# condition[

Perceived Typicality

A single!factor "scenario] stereotypic:counter!stereotypic# ANOVA revealed a mar!ginally signi_cant e}ect on typicality ratings\ F"0\32#�2[26\ p³ 9[96[ Typicalityratings were higher in the stereotypic than the counter!stereotypic condition"Ms�2[54 versus 1[85#[ An individual performing a stereotypic behavior was per!



ceived as more typical of the target group than an individual performing a counter!stereotypic behavior[

Relationship between Attributions and Stereotype!based Ratin`s

Pearson product moment correlations were computed between the attribution indexand ratings of aggressiveness of the target individual and the group as a whole[ Thecorrelations were conducted separately for each scenario condition and are shown inTable 2[

Stereotypic Scenario

There was a signi_cant negative correlation between the attribution index and ratingsof aggressiveness for the individual target\ r"19#�−9[356\ p³ 9[94\ and a signi_cantpositive correlation between ratings of aggressiveness for the individual target andthe group as a whole\ r"19#�9[400\ p³ 9[94[ The stronger the attribution of thestereotypic behavior to situational relative to dispositional factors\ the less stereotypic"more aggressive# the target was perceived to be[ There was also generalization fromthe target individual to the group as a whole\ the more aggressive the individual wasjudged to be\ the more aggressive the group as whole was perceived to be[ There wereno signi_cant correlations in this condition between typicality judgments of the targetindividual and aggressiveness ratings of either the individual or the group as a whole[Perceptions of the target and generalization from the target to the group were notmoderated by the perceived typicality of the target[

Counter!stereotypic Scenario

There was a signi_cant correlation between the attribution index and ratings ofthe target|s aggressiveness\ r"14#�9[59\ p³ 9[94[ The more strongly the counter!stereotypic behavior was attributed to dispositional relative to situational factors theless stereotypic "more aggressive# the target was perceived to be[ There was\ however\no signi_cant correlation between the attribution index and aggressiveness ratings ofthe target group or between ratings of the individual and the group^ there was nogeneralization from perceptions of the individual to perceptions of the group[ Therewas a signi_cant correlation between the perceived typicality of the target and aggress!iveness ratings of the group as a whole\ r"14#�−9[43\ p³ 9[94[ The more typicalthe target performing the counter!stereotypic behavior was judged to be the lessstrongly the group was judged in stereotype!based terms[

To investigate whether the zero!order correlation between the attributional indexand the aggressiveness rating of the group was moderated by perceived typicalityof the target multiple regression analyses were computed[ In the _rst analysis theaggressiveness rating of the group was the dependent measure and the attributionindex and the typicality rating the predictor variables[ The regression was signi_cant\F"1\10#�4[94\ p³ 9[94\ and accounted for 15[95 per cent of the variance in group!based ratings[ There was a signi_cant e}ect of perceived typicality "b�9[492\



t�1[79\ p³ 9[90#[ In the second analysis the aggressiveness rating of the group wasthe dependent measure and the attribution index and the typicality rating and theproduct of these measures the predictor variables[ The regression was again signi_cant\F"2\19#�5[64\ p³ 9[90\ and accounted for 31[74 per cent of the variance in group!based ratings[ There was a signi_cant e}ect of perceived typicality "b�9[681\t�3[03\ p³ 9[9994# and of the typicality!index product "b�−0[92\ t�−1[57\p³ 9[90# with the attributional index having a marginally signi_cant e}ect "b�9[567\t�0[79\ p³ 9[98#[ The signi_cant product e}ect resulted in more of the variance inthe group aggressiveness ratings being accounted for and indicated an importantconditional relationship in these data[ The regression of the group aggressivenessratings on perceived typicality depends on the attributional index or\ equivalently\the regression of the group aggressiveness ratings on the attributional index dependson the level of perceived typicality of the target exemplar[

Experiment 2 revealed a similar pattern of results to Experiment 1 using a di}erenttarget group and di}erent scenario[ As in Experiment 1 the attribution index washigher for the counter!stereotypic than the stereotypic behavior\ indicating that whenperceivers were not given an explanation for the target behavior counter!stereotypicbehaviors were attributed relatively more strongly to situational than dispositionalfactors than were stereotypic behaviors[ Consistent with this pattern of attributions\stereotype!based beliefs and\ indeed\ stereotype!based judgments of the group did notdi}er from those of baseline participants[ However\ the correlations between theattributions for the target|s behavior and stereotype!based evaluations showed arelationship between attributions made and stereotype!based judgments[ The morestrongly the actor|s stereotypic behavior was attributed to situational than dis!positional factors the less strongly he was judged in a stereotype!based manner[ Therewas also generalization from perceptions of the individual to those of the group^ theless stereotype!based the judgments of the individual the less stereotype!based mannerthe judgments of the group[ The more strongly the target|s counter!stereotypicbehavior was attributed to dispositional than situational factors\ the less the individualwas judged in a stereotype!based manner[ There was no generalization from per!ceptions of the individual to the group as a whole when the exemplar performed acounter!stereotypic behavior[ There was\ however\ a signi_cant negative relationshipbetween the perceived typicality of the exemplar and stereotype!based ratings^ themore typical of the group the target performing the counter!stereotypic behavior wasperceived to be\ the less strongly the group was judged in stereotype!based terms[ Theregression analysis indicates an interaction between the attributions made for thecounter!stereotypic behavior and the perceived typicality of the target in predictingthe stereotype!based rating of the group as a whole[ This _nding supports the argu!ment that moderation of stereotype!based beliefs through the presentation of counter!stereotypic information will only occur if the target is perceived as a typical groupmember "Hewstone\ 0878^ Wilder et al[\ 0885#[

GENERAL DISCUSSION

The present research investigated whether group!based stereotypic beliefs would bemoderated as a consequence of attributing stereotypic behavior to situational causes[



Experiment 0 showed that when given a situational explanation for a stereotypicbehavior perceivers rated the target group less strongly on a stereotype!based dimen!sion than did control participants who received no behavioral information[ Althoughthis result was encouraging for stereotype moderation\ it was noted that perceiversare oftentimes not provided with an explanation for the behavior of others and whennot speci_cally given a situational attribution for stereotypic behavior it is unusualfor such an attribution to be made[ Instead\ stereotypic behavior is typically attributedto dispositional causes "Bodenhausen + Wyer\ 0874^ Duncan\ 0865^ Evett et al[\ 0883^Jackson et al[\ 0882^ Macrae + Shepherd\ 0878#[ This tendency was also seen inExperiments 1 and 2 in which participants were not given an explanation for thetarget|s behavior^ stereotypic behavior was attributed more strongly to dispositionalthan situational causes and counter!stereotypic behavior more strongly to situationalthan dispositional causes[ Such attributions are consistent with stereotype main!tenance rather than with stereotype moderation and\ indeed\ no moderation of stereo!type!based beliefs relative to baseline was seen in either experiment[

Although there was no overall moderation of stereotype!based beliefs in Experiment1 or 2\ correlational analyses revealed that there was a relationship between theattributions made for a speci_c stereotype!relevant behavior and stereotype!basedjudgments of both the individual actor and the group as a whole[ When the targetindividual performed a stereotypic behavior\ the more strongly the behavior wasattributed to situational relative to dispositional factors the less strongly the groupwas judged in stereotype!based terms[ In Experiment 1 there was evidence of both adirect e}ect of attributions on judgments of the target group and an indirect e}ectvia generalization from perceptions of the speci_c target individual to the group as awhole[ In Experiment 2 the e}ect was only an indirect one[ The presence of the directrelationship may depend on the speci_c traits and the strength of the stereotype beingconsidered[ There was less evidence of a relationship between the attributions madefor counter!stereotypic behavior and stereotype!based judgments\ however[ Only inExperiment 2 was there a relationship between attributions and judgments of targetindividuals but there was no generalization from perceptions of the individual to thatof the group as a whole[ This lack of generalization from the individual to the groupis consistent with the lower ratings of typicality given to the target performing thecounter!stereotypic behavior[ Both Hewstone "0878# and Wilder et al[ "0885# emphas!ized the need for actors to be perceived as typical group exemplars if they were tobring about stereotype change as atypical actors may be isolated from the targetgroup "Johnston + Hewstone\ 0881^ Kunda + Oleson\ 0884\ 0886^ Weber + Crocker\0872#[ In Experiment 2 there was a relationship between perceptions of typicality andstereotype!based judgments of the target group which moderated to some extent therelationship between the attribution index and stereotype!based judgments of thegroup[

In both Experiment 1 and Experiment 2 there was a small number of participantswho did show the pattern of attributions predicted to lead to moderation of stereotype!based beliefs "Hewstone\ 0878^ Wilder et al[\ 0885#\ attributing stereotypic behaviormore strongly to situational than dispositional causes or counter!stereotypic behaviormore strongly to dispositional than situational causes[ The investigation of the impactof individual di}erences\ such as attributional style and prejudice level\ on attributionsis an exciting avenue for future research in this domain[ The number of such par!ticipants in the present research was too low to provide any power in statistical



analyses but two interesting trends were evident[ First\ in both studies there wasa greater number of participants who attributed counter!stereotypic behavior todispositional factors than participants who attributed stereotypic behavior to situ!ational factors[ Second\ those participants who attributed counter!stereotypicbehavior to dispositional causes did not show a lower mean stereotype!based ratingof the group than control participants but participants who attributed stereotypicbehavior to situational causes were less stereotype!based in their evaluations of thetarget group than were control participants[ Making the attributions necessary topromote moderation of stereotypes is more likely for counter!stereotypic than ster!eotypic behavior\ consistent with evidence from spontaneous inference research"Carlston + Stowronski\ 0883^ Smith + Miller\ 0872^ Uleman et al[\ in press#[However\ making dispositional attributions for counter!stereotypic behavior did notlead to less stereotype!based judgments of the target group\ possibly as a consequenceof the actor who performed counter!stereotypic behavior being perceived as atypical[Making situational attributions for stereotypic behavior was less frequent but whenit did occur there was a reduction in stereotype!based judgments of the group relativeto baseline[

The present _ndings have implications for the stereotype change researcher andthe social legislator alike[ Previous attempts to change stereotypes have focused onpresenting perceivers with counter!stereotypic information and motivating them tointegrate that information into their existing stereotype!based beliefs[ Integration ofcounter!stereotypic information may be enhanced by the attribution of counter!stereotypic behavior to dispositional causes as shown by Wilder et al[ "0885#[ Inour studies relatively strong dispositional attributions for an individual|s counter!stereotypic behavior were su.cient for that individual to be judged in a less stereotype!based manner "E2# but were not su.cient to moderate stereotype!based beliefs of thegroup[ In order for counter!stereotypic behavior of an individual group exemplar toin~uence group!based perceptions the exemplar must be perceived as a typical groupmember[ Moderating stereotype!based beliefs through the presentation of stereotypicbehavior may be more e}ective than through the presentation of counter!stereotypicbehavior[ There was a negative relationship between the relative strength of thesituational attribution and the stereotype!based evaluation of the target and\ impor!tantly\ there was also a correlation between judgments of the individual and of thegroup[ Non!stereotypic judgments of the target individual who was perceived astypical of the group generalized to non!stereotypic judgments of the target group[ Inorder for stereotypic behavior to in~uence group!based perceptions\ then\ perceiversmust simply be motivated to make situational attributions for the behavior[ Goodarguments for such situational attributions are available\ for example in terms of theimpact of role constraints on behavior "Eagly\ 0876# such that it may be relativelyeasy to convince perceivers of the situational causes of "some# stereotypic behaviorand hence moderate stereotype!based beliefs[ Such an alternative route to moderationof stereotype!based beliefs certainly warrants further investigation[

ACKNOWLEDGEMENTS

The reported research was developed from a project carried out in partial ful_lmentof the honours program in Psychology at the University of Canterbury by the last



two authors[ The order of these two authors was decided alphabetically\ and does notre~ect any di}erential contribution to the project[ Thanks are extended to VanceLocke\ Leonel Garcia!Marques\ Mansur Lalljee and two anonymous reviews for theircomments on an earlier draft of the manuscript[

REFERENCES

Abrams D\ Hogg MA[ 0874[ Comments on the motivational status of self!esteem in socialidentity and intergroup discrimination[ European Journal of Social Psycholo`y 07] 206Ð223[

Allport GW[ 0843[ The Nature of Prejudice[ Addison!Wesley] Reading\ MA[Anderson CA\ Lepper MR\ Ross L[ 0879[ Perseverance of social theories] The role of expla!

nation in the persistence of discredited information[ Journal of Personality and Social Psy!cholo`y 28] 0926Ð0938[

Bodenhausen GV\ Wyer RS Jr[ 0874[ E}ects of stereotypes on decision making and informationprocessing strategies[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 37] 156Ð171[

Carlston DE\ Skowronski JJ[ 0883[ Savings in the relearning of trait information as evidencefor spontaneous inference generation[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 55] 739Ð745[

Duncan BL[ 0865[ Di}erential social perception and attribution of intergroup violence] Testingthe lower limits of stereotyping of Blacks[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 23]489Ð487[

Eagly AH[ 0876[ Sex Differences in Social Behavior] A Social!role Interpretation[ Erlbaum]Hillsdale\ NJ[

Eagly AH\ Ste}en VJ[ 0873[ Gender stereotypes stem from distribution of women and meninto social roles[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 35] 624Ð643[

Eagly AH\ Wood W[ 0871[ Inferred sex di}erences in status as a determinant of genderstereotypes about social in~uence[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 32] 804Ð817[

Evett SR\ Devine PG\ Hirt ER\ Price J[ 0883[ The role of the hypothesis and the evidence inthe trait hypothesis testing process[ Journal of Experimental Social Psycholo`y 29] 345Ð370[

Hamilton DL\ Sherman JW[ 0883[ Stereotypes[ In Handbook of Social Co`nition\ 1nd edn\Wyer RS\ Srull TK "eds#[ Erlbaum] Hillsdale\ NJ[

Hewstone M[ 0878[ Causal Attribution] From Co`nitive Processes to Collective Beliefs[ BasilBlackwell] Oxford[

Higgins ET\ Bargh JA[ 0876[ Social cognition and perception[ Annual Review of Psycholo`y27] 258Ð314[

Hudak MA[ 0882[ Gender schema theory revisited] Men|s stereotypes of American women[Sex Roles 17] 169Ð182[

Jackson LA\ Sullivan LA\ Hodge CN[ 0882[ Stereotype e}ects on attributions\ predictions andevaluations] No two social judgments are quite alike[ Journal of Personality and SocialPsycholo`y 54] 58Ð73[

Johnston L[ 0885[ Resisting change] Information!seeking and stereotype change[ EuropeanJournal of Social Psycholo`y 15] 688Ð715[

Johnston L\ Hewstone M[ 0881[ Cognitive models of stereotype change "2#] Subtyping andthe perceived typicality of discon_rming group members[ Journal of Experimental SocialPsycholo`y 17] 259Ð275[

Krueger J\ Rothbart M[ 0877[ Use of categorical and individuating information in makinginferences about personality[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 44] 076Ð084[

Kunda Z\ Oleson KC[ 0884[ Maintaining stereotypes in the face of discon_rmation] Con!structing grounds for subtyping deviants[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 57]454Ð468[

Kunda Z\ Oleson KC[ 0886[ When exceptions prove the rule] How extremity of diviancedetermines the impact of deviant examples on stereotypes[ Journal of Personality and SocialPsycholo`y 61] 854Ð868[



Locksley A\ Borgida E\ Brekke N\ Hepburn C[ 0879[ Sex stereotypes and social judgment[Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 28] 710Ð720[

Lupfer MB\ Clark LF\ Hutcherson HW[ 0889[ Impact of context on spontaneous trait andsituational attributions[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 47] 128Ð138[

Macrae CN\ Bodenhausen GV\ Milne AB[ 0883[ Stereotypes as energy!saving devices] A peekinside the cognitive toolbox[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y 55] 26Ð36[

Macrae CN\ Shepherd JW[ 0878[ Stereotypes and social judgments[ British Journal of SocialPsycholo`y 17] 208Ð214[

Macrae CN\ Shepherd JW\ Milne AB[ 0881[ The e}ects of source credibility on the dilution ofstereotype!based judgments[ Personality and Social Psycholo`y Bulletin 07] 654Ð664[

Pyszczynski TA\ Greenberg J[ 0876[ Toward an integration of cognitive and motivationalperspectives in social inference] A biased hypothesis!testing model[ In Advances in Exper!imental Social Psycholo`y\ Vol[ 19\ Berkowitz L "ed[#[ Academic Press] New York^ 186Ð239[

Ross LD[ 0866[ The intuitive psychologist and his shortcomings] Distortions in the attributionprocess[ In Advances in Experimental Social Psycholo`y\ Vol[ 09\ Berkowitz L "ed[#[ AcademicPress] New York[

Sherman SJ\ Judd CM\ Park B[ 0878[ Social cognition[ Annual Review of Psycholo`y 39] 170Ð215[

Smith ER\ Miller FD[ 0872[ Mediation among attributional inferences and comprehensionprocesses] Initial _ndings and a general method[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y33] 381Ð494[

Uleman JS\ Newman LS\ Moskowitz GB[ in press[ People as ~exible interpreters] Evidencefrom spontaneous trait inference[ In Advances in Experimental Social Psycholo`y\ Vol[ 18\Zanna MP "ed[#[ Academic Press] SanDiego\ CA[

Weber R\ Crocker J[ 0872[ cognitive processes in the revision of stereotypic beliefs[ Journal ofPersonality and Social Psycholo`y 34] 850Ð866[

Wilder DA\ Simon AF\ Faith M[ 0885[ Enhancing the impact of counterstereotypic infor!mation] Dispositional attributions for deviance[ Journal of Personality and Social Psycholo`y60] 165Ð176[

Wittenbrink B\ Gist PL\ Hilton JL[ 0886[ Structural properties of stereotypic knowledge andtheir in~uences on the construal of social situations[ Journal of Personality and SocialPsycholo`y 61] 415Ð432[

an investigation of the link between attributional judgments and stereotype-based judgments

Documents