Low-prejudice people vary widely in how effectively they regulate prejudiced responses.
Evidence
To the extent that cues for control become well learned, low-prejudice people should become highly efficient at eliminating prejudice and should, in effect, break the prejudice habit. However, evidence suggests that there is considerable variability in the effectiveness with which low-prejudice people regulate behavioral expressions of prejudice (e.g., Devine & Monteith, 1999; see also Dovidio, Kawakami & Gartner, 2002). Whereas some low-prejudice people are good at regulating prejudice (i.e., effective at inhibiting prejudice), others are less effective (see, for example, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Devine, 2003; Devine et al., 2002). Drawing on insights from the cognitive neuroscience literature, Amodio, Devine, and Harmon- Jones (2004; Amodio, Harmon-Jones, et al., 2004) explored the possibility that examining differences in underlying brain activity can help to clarify the types of processes used to exert control and reveal differences among effective and less effective prejudice regulators in the use of such processes. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2110
Categorization
Category: Factual Claims
Related
- Even motivated, low-prejudice people differ widely in regulating biased behavior (similarity 0.92)
- Low-prejudice people learn to inhibit prejudice by associating failures with guilt and self-regulatory cues. (similarity 0.85)
- Low-prejudice people suppress stereotypes without suffering rebound effects. (similarity 0.80)
- Low-prejudice people reduce automatic bias by learning to associate failures with guilt and self-regulation (similarity 0.80)
- External and internal motives to avoid prejudice produce different emotions as control cues (similarity 0.80)
- Prejudice-prone people can train themselves to interrupt automatic biased responses (similarity 0.79)
- Expression of prejudice diverges from private belief depending on perceived social norms. (similarity 0.78)