Contradictory evidence is neutralized by subtyping rather than revising stereotypes

Evidence

People can, for example, selectively cite examples to support negative views of outgroup members while simultaneously ignoring or distorting contrary evidence. Such selective consideration and interpretation of “evidence” enables people to maintain the illusion that they are objective and fair-minded. For example, evidence of a highly accomplished Black person who contradicts the stereotype of Blacks as lazy is easily handled by viewing that individual as the “exception that proves the rule.” Contemporary authors refer to this process as subtyping (Rothbart & John, 1985). Once subtyped, the person no longer threatens the validity of stereotypic thinking. Allport recognized that this strategy enables people to recognize their negative beliefs but to view them as valid rather than prejudiced. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2095 (#expands, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Released evidence cannot dispel beliefs rooted in unfalsifiable subcultures — Michael Barkun, A Culture of Conspiracy: Apocalyptic…, 891; People often distort evidence to fit preexisting worldviews rather than updating beliefs — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 108; Disagreement over evidence can stem from accuracy motives or identity motives — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 140 (+11 more)

Broader Connections

• Counterexamples get fenced off as exceptions rather than revising stereotypes #expands (0.98)
• Subtyping protects stereotypes by exempting counter-evidence as exceptions. #expands (0.97) — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2095
• Perceivers neutralize stereotype-disconfirming individuals by subtyping them. #expands (0.97)
• Individuals who contradict stereotypes get subtyped so the overall stereotype survives intact #expands (0.96) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 304