Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination
Stereotypic explanatory bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination
Denise Sekaquaptewa,a,* Penelope Espinoza,a Mischa Thompson,a
Patrick Vargas,b and William von Hippelc
a Department of Psychology, University of Michigan, Ann Arbor, MI 48109-1109, USA b Department of Advertising, University of Illinois, IL, USA
c School of Psychology, University of New South Wales, Sydney, Australia
Received 7 March 2001; revised 11 February 2002
Abstract
Two experiments examined whether a measure of implicit stereotyping based on the tendency to explain Black stereotype-
incongruent events more often than Black stereotype-congruent events (Stereotypic Explanatory Bias or SEB) is predictive of be-
havior toward a partner in an interracial interaction. In Experiment 1 SEB predicted White males� choice to ask stereotypic questions of a Black female (but not a White male or White female) in an interview. In Experiment 2 the type of explanation
(internal or external attribution) made for stereotype-inconsistency was examined. Results showed that White participants who
made internal attributions for Black stereotype-incongruent behavior were rated more positively and those who made external
attributions were rated more negatively by a Black male confederate. These results point to the potential of implicit stereotyping as
an important predictor of behavior in an interracial interaction.
� 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved.
Keywords: Stereotyping; Intergroup behavior; Prejudice; Interracial interaction
Stereotyping and prejudice are difficult to measure
because people are often unwilling to admit negative
attitudes and beliefs about social groups (Fazio, Jack-
son, Dunton, & Williams, 1995). Additionally, people
may sometimes be unable to accurately report on these
topics because how they think and feel about social groups may not be consciously accessible to them
(Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Thus, researchers are faced
with a substantial ‘‘willing and able’’ problem when
attempting to measure prejudice and stereotyping.
In response to this ‘‘willing and able’’ problem, re-
searchers turned to measures of implicit prejudice and
stereotyping. Such measures are thought to tap con-
sciously inaccessible group-based attitudes and beliefs (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Most research attention
has focused on implicit prejudice measures, which are
intended to assess the degree of positivity or negativity
an individual implicitly associates with social groups
(e.g., Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Some-
what less research attention has focused on implicit
stereotype measures (e.g., Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park,
1997), and implicit stereotyping, which we define as the
unintended influence of stereotypes on information
processing (cf. Brewer, 1996). In part, this focus on prejudice rather than stereotypes/stereotyping probably
emerged because prejudice has traditionally been
thought to be more consequential than stereotyping for
behavioral outcomes such as discrimination (Brigham,
1971; Stangor, Sullivan, & Ford, 1991).
To the extent that measures of implicit prejudice and
stereotyping assess important processes relevant to in-
tergroup attitudes and perceptions (von Hippel, Se- kaquaptewa, & Vargas, 1995, 1997), it seems reasonable
to expect them to relate to intergroup behavior. Yet
such demonstrations are rare. In one study, White
participants who implicitly favored Whites over
African-Americans were rated by observers as having
more positive interactions with a White than a Black
experimenter (McConnell & Leibold, 2001; see also
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 75–82
www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
*Corresponding author. Fax: 1-734-647-9440.
E-mail address: dsekaqua@umich.edu (D. Sekaquaptewa).
0022-1031/02/$ – see front matter � 2002 Elsevier Science (USA). All rights reserved. PII: S0022-1031 (02 )00512-7
mail to: dsekaqua@umich.edu
Fazio et al., 1995). Similarly, Whites high in implicit prejudice showed greater indications of anxiety (e.g.,
eyeblinking) when interacting with a Black partner
(Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard,
1997). The dearth of studies on the predictive utility of
such measures (particularly on implicit stereotyping,
concerning which no studies could be located) indicates
the need for more experimental investigations in this
area. If stereotyping is defined as the use of stereotypes in
information processing (Brewer, 1996), then there are
almost as many ways to operationalize implicit stereo-
typing as there are known stereotypic biases. Of these
biases, we focused on an explanatory bias adapted from
Hastie (1984) and introduced in our earlier work (von
Hippel et al., 1997, Experiment 3). This explanatory bias
emerges when one is more likely to provide explanations for behaviors that are inconsistent with expectancies
than for behaviors that are consistent with expectancies.
For example, if one expects an individual ‘‘James’’ to be
unintelligent, learning that ‘‘James received an A on the
test’’ may instigate explanatory processing, in an at-
tempt to make sense of the incongruity (‘‘. . .because it was an easy test’’). Learning that ‘‘James received a D
on the test,’’ on the other hand, is unlikely to instigate explanatory processing. Because such expectancies can
be based on stereotypes, an explanatory bias can emerge
in response to stereotype-inconsistency as well. To the
extent that this stereotypic explanatory bias (SEB) re-
flects the unintended influence of stereotypes on pro-
cessing, it is well-suited to the goal of measuring implicit
stereotyping.1
If implicit stereotyping as indicated by SEB reflects differences in the way perceivers process stereotype-
relevant information, then it seems likely that people
who vary in SEB would react differently during inter-
actions with stereotyped individuals. People who show
SEB should tend to selectively discount counter-stereo-
typic behaviors from Blacks, and thereby behave in a
more negative manner when interacting with a Black
person. According to this logic, we predicted that re- spondents who show SEB would display discriminatory
behavior towards a Black but not a White individual. In
the lab, discriminatory behaviors are likely to be rela-
tively subtle, involving nonverbal behaviors (Dovidio et
al., 1997) or behavioral choices that are not clearly as-
sociated with discrimination. For example, Rudman and
Borgida (1995) identified sexist behavior in men who
chose to ask subtly sexist/stereotypic questions in an interview context. Experiment 1 was conducted using a
similar procedure adapted for interracial interaction.
White male participants engaged in a mock job inter- view with either a White or Black interviewee (actually a
research assistant). Participants were given a list of
Black stereotypic and neutral questions to select for use
in their interview. It was predicted that White partici-
pants who showed SEB would tend to choose stereo-
typic questions to ask of a Black but not a White
applicant.
Because prejudicial attitudes have been shown to be better predictors of behavior than endorsement of ste-
reotypes (e.g., Brigham, 1971), the Modern Racism
Scale (MRS: McConahay, Hardee, & Batts, 1981) was
also administered. We predicted that SEB would ac-
count for variance in behavioral choice beyond that
explained by the MRS. Because implicit measures are
frequently unrelated to more traditional, direct mea-
sures of racial attitudes (Dovidio et al., 1997; Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001; von Hippel et al., 1997), we expected
that the SEB measure would not be correlated with the
MRS.
Experiment 1
Method
Participants
Fifty-five White males participated in partial fulfill-
ment of psychology course requirements.
Materials
Stereotypic explanatory bias was assessed by pre-
senting participants with a series of 25 sentence beginnings, 16 of which were designed to measure re-
sponses to Black stereotype-consistent behaviors (e.g.,
easily made the team) and Black stereotype-inconsis-
tent behaviors (e.g., got a job at Microsoft). Behaviors
were paired with 50% male and 50% female African-
American (e.g., Marcellus, Lakisha) and White names
(e.g., Adam, Deborah). Nine race-neutral behaviors
(e.g., Linda ate a sandwich) were also included as filler items. It was necessary to include White targets in the
measure to ensure that participants were responding to
the com- bination of the target�s race and the race stereotypicality of the behavior, as opposed to only the
behavior itself. Additionally, the SEB items included
both positive and negative Black stereotypic behaviors
(i.e., easily made the team; blasted loud music in his
car) and positive and negative counter-stereotypic be- haviors (i.e., enrolled at Princeton; refused to dance).
Participants were asked to add words to the end of the
sentence stem in any manner that created a grammat-
ically correct sentence (see Hastie, 1984). SEB is evi-
denced by providing more explanations for Black
targets engaging in Black stereotype-inconsistent than –
consistent behaviors.
1 In a pretest SEB was demonstrated in students enrolled in a
course on stereotyping and was uncorrelated with explicit stereotype
endorsement, rð59Þ ¼ �:005, p ¼ :97, supporting the idea that the bias is implicit and distinct from conscious stereotype endorsement.
76 D. Sekaquaptewa et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 39 (2003) 75–82
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/261777860_Racial_Stereotypes_Attitudes_and_Evaluations_of_and_Behavioral_Intentions_Toward_Negroes_and_Whites?el=1_x_8&enrichId=rgreq-ff66d170-b572-4a5c-ba5d-0e26b1b2dfb2&enrichSource=Y292ZXJQYWdlOzM3NjI0Mzk4O0FTOjE0ODAwMjE2NTQ5Nzg1NkAxNDEyMjk3ODc0MzA5

