Subtyping versus bookkeeping in stereotype learning and change: Connectionist simulations and empirical findings.

Abstract

A distributed connectionist network can account for both bookkeeping (M. Rothbart, 1981) and subtyping (M. B. Brewer, V. Dull, & L. Lui, 1981; S. E. Taylor, 1981) effects. The finding traditionally regarded as demonstrating subtyping is that exposure to moderate (compared with extreme) disconfirmers leads to subsequent ratings of the group that are less stereotypic. Despite learning that is incremental and analogous to bookkeeping, the simulations replicate this finding and suggest that the "subtyping" pattern of results will be drastically reduced if disconfirmers are encountered before the stereotype is well-established. This novel prediction holds with human participants and offers a tantalizing suggestion: Although moderate disconfirmers may produce more stereotype change. stereotype development might be discouraged by exposure to either extreme or moderate disconfirmers.

Functional imaging of implicit marijuana associations during performance on an Implicit Association Test (IAT)

“…Research on the neurobiology of drug use has shown this behavior to be highly sensitive to prior learning experiences and predictive cues, which become encoded into patterns of association. Cues can then trigger a pattern of activation in memory that is a relatively automatic process, described in connectionist and neural network models (e.g., Hopfield and Tank, 1986; Queller and Smith, 2002). As learned associations in memory are strengthened, patterns of associations signal and drive behavior without the necessary involvement of deliberative or control processes (cf., Stacy et al, 2004; White, 1996; Wiers et al, 2007).…”

How subtyping shapes perception: Predictable exceptions to the rule reduce attention to stereotype-associated dimensions

“…Thus, similar processes apparently operated in this artificial task as in more naturalistic paradigms. Second, just as with stereotyping in general (e.g., Smith & DeCoster, 1998), subtyping can be partially understood as a consequence of general principles of learning and memory (Queller & Smith, 2002). Particularly, Queller and Smith (2002) demonstrated that subtyping is an inherent feature of connectionist network models of memory.…”

“…In this case, the disconfirmation was clustered around very oblong beans with many speckles (Figure 2 C). Clustered disconfirmation promotes subtyping, because it associates a salient perceptual feature with stereotype disconfirmation (Queller & Smith, 2002), making it easier to abstract disconfirming exemplars into a subtype (Richards & Hewstone, 2001). A realworld example of clustered disconfirmation would be meeting a number of introverted lawyers, who are also casually dressed and are working for human rights organizations.…”

Learning the norm of internality: NetNorm, a connectionist model

“…Since the publication of Smith's seminal article (1996), applications of connectionist models have been extended to the study of socio-cognitive phenomena such as social learning , stereotypes (Smith and DeCoster 1998;Queller and Smith 2002), attitudes (Eiser, Fazio, Stafford and Prescott, 2003;Conrey and Smith 2007), and intergroup relationships (Read and Urada 2003;Eiser, Stafford, Russell and Fazio, 2008).…”