Priming Race

Pietraszewski, David

doi:10.1177/1948550615602934

Cited by 15 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 31 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…This was administered following the distractor task but before the surprise recall. This procedure builds on previous works that demonstrated how leadership and partner evaluative psychologies can even be activated with simple prompts in fictitious scenarios (Antonakis & Dalgas, 2009;Laustsen & Petersen, 2015) and combines it with previous works on priming in the memory confusion protocol (Pietraszewski, 2016). Otherwise, the procedure for both groups was identical to the previous experiments.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

“…We know cognitive mechanisms regulating social exchange need to be extremely context-sensitive (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992). Perhaps competence categorization is inhibited at recall in environments in which there is a significant variation in effort (Pietraszewski, 2016). This could help to avoid situations in which someone is excluded from a reciprocal relationship despite being a valuable group member.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…To examine the existence of these mechanisms, four experiments using memory confusion protocol were conducted. The memory confusion protocol is an established experimental tool designed to tap into how people are categorized in social perception (Pietraszewski, 2016;Taylor, Fiske, Etcoff, & Ruderman, 1978). In these experiments, participants first receive information about the actions of eight targets.…”

Section: The Theoretical Relevance Of Competence In Leader and Partnementioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

Spontaneous categorization along competence in partner and leader evaluations

Bor

2017

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Maintaining reciprocal relationships is challenging, as there is uncertainty both about our partner's intentions and their competences. When investing in a partner, we are making two bets: that they are motivated to reciprocate and that they are able to do so. There is compelling evidence that humans have evolved cognitive mechanisms to inform the first bet. People routinely detect, avoid or even punish cheaters and free-riders in reciprocal relations (Cosmides & Tooby, 1992; Delton, Cosmides, Guemo, Robertson, & Tooby, 2012). We also take motivations into account when making decisions about who to help (Petersen, 2015). The evidence is less clear when it comes to the second bet regarding abilities and competences. Research in psychology gives the impression that people are unskilled at distinguishing between competent and incompetent social partners. In a laboratory experiment, Delton and Robertson (2012) described targets who either contributed to the group's food pool or not and found no evidence that this information led to categorization. In a similar experiment, van Leeuwen, Park & Penton-Voak (2012) presented targets who varied both in their morality and competence, finding that respondents spontaneously categorized the targets along morality but not competence. Focusing on motivational systems related to these two dimensions, Petersen and colleagues found that incompetence does not trigger strong emotions, whereas a lack of motivation (intention) to cooperate does (Petersen, Sznycer, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2012; Petersen & Aarøe, 2013). In sharp contrast to these findings, however, research in political science on the evaluation of political leaders suggests that competence is a key character trait shaping evaluations (

show abstract

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 93%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: The Theoretical Relevance Of Competence In Leader and Partnementioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Spontaneous categorization along competence in partner and leader evaluations

Bor

2017

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…An important "benefit of the categorization measure is that it allows us to see how subjects spontaneously view this social world" (Delton & Robertson, 2012, p. 718). Using WSW, Kurzban et al (2001) famously demonstrated that categorization by race is an artefact of our strong, innate propensity to categorize by coalition and can therefore be diminished when race becomes a poor predictor of coalition (see also Pietraszewski, 2016;Pietraszewski, Cosmides, & Tooby, 2014). This paper provides a crucial methodological improvement to this important literature.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 92%

Correcting for base rates in multidimensional “Who said what?” experiments

Bor

2018

Evolution and Human Behavior

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The 'Who said what?' protocol is a popular experimental paradigm and has been used for 40 years to study spontaneous mental categorization. This paper offers a crucial methodological improvement to calculate unbiased estimates in multidimensional 'Who said what?' studies. Previous studies predominantly corrected for base rates by first correcting the base rates and consequently aggregating errors for the two dimensions separately. The paper demonstrates that this procedure's estimates are biased. A large simulation of over 175,000 experiments and the reanalysis of a pivotal study show that this may increase both false-positive and false-negative error rates in treatment effects and might therefore, respectively, strengthen or weaken evidence for past hypotheses. The paper offers a simple remedy: researchers should first aggregate errors for each dimension and then correct for base rates relying on the method known from singledimensional studies.

show abstract

“…Awareness There is abundant evidence that category primes (e.g., faces of group members or category labels) presented subliminally influence prejudice/stereotype activation (e.g., Degner, Wentura, Gniewosz, & Noack, 2007;Perdue & Gurtman, 1990). For example, Moskowitz, Stone, and Childs (2012) presented people with category primes (faces of African and European men) for as short as 10 ms.…”

Section: Automatic Activation Of Stereotypes/prejudicementioning

confidence: 99%

Automatic Antecedents of Discrimination

Roth

Deutsch

Sherman

2019

European Psychologist

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Abstract. In increasingly diverse societies, discrimination against social groups and their members continues to be a public and political concern. Research has addressed three basic cognitive processes that precede discrimination: categorization, stereotype/prejudice activation, and stereotype/prejudice application, suggesting that these processes occur in an automatic fashion. However, there are multiple components of automaticity, including unawareness, efficiency, unintentionality, and uncontrollability. Most of the previous research implies that these components of automaticity converge with respect to cognitive antecedents of discrimination. Here, we review evidence on the distinct components of automaticity in order to assess whether (a) categorization, (b) stereotype/prejudice activation, and (c) stereotype/prejudice application occur (1) without awareness, (2) efficiently, and (3) goal-independently. We highlight evidence indicating convergence or divergence of the automaticity components during each of the processing stages. This analysis provides readers with an up-to-date review that helps to evaluate whether a multi-component approach to automaticity is of additional benefit in aggregating knowledge about the cognitive antecedents of discrimination. We discuss open issues and avenues for future research.

show abstract

Priming Race

Cited by 15 publications

References 31 publications

Spontaneous categorization along competence in partner and leader evaluations

Spontaneous categorization along competence in partner and leader evaluations

Correcting for base rates in multidimensional “Who said what?” experiments

Automatic Antecedents of Discrimination

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About