Selective evidence use lets people maintain the illusion of being objective while holding prejudice

Evidence

Defensive rationalizations do not truly resolve the conflict, but rather allow people to make sense of inconsistencies by marshalling evidence to justify negative views of outgroup members. 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. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 2095

Categorization

• DEFINE: Defines subtyping as the mechanism that protects stereotypes from contradicting examples.
• XREF: The ‘exception that proves the rule’ subtyping dynamic connects to confirmation-bias research and to Gaertner-Dovidio aversive racism as complementary self-protective mechanisms. — connects to: 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; People deploy selective perception and motivated reasoning routinely when faced with evidence — Sander van der Linden, Foolproof: Why Misinformation Infects…, 144 (+4 more)
• ADDENDUM: Supports the ‘Grafting & Growth’ article only loosely; more relevant is that subtyping functions as a cognitive ‘safety valve’ akin to how grafting preserves rootstock identity — a usable metaphor for that piece.