Participant observer blog: Unconscious stereotypes

Stereotypes consist of general beliefs about the characteristics of members of a group and seem to be a fact of daily life; they are presented and reinforced by the media, language, and many other factors (Ward et al., 2005; Ward & Friedman, 2006). Some stereotypes are so strongly associated with certain groups that they function at an unconscious or implicit level. Implicit stereotypes influence preferences, beliefs, and actions often without being detected.

In an attempt to better understand implicit stereotypes and unconscious preferences and beliefs in general, the Implicit Associates Test (IAT) was created (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). Although there are numerous topics addressed by different IATs, each test uses the same general method to come to conclusions about personal preferences and beliefs of which the subjects are unconsciously aware and/or unwilling to acknowledge. During an IAT, the participant is instructed to pair two concepts (e.g., disability and good, ability and good) as rapidly as possible. According to theory, it is easier to respond more rapidly to more strongly associated concepts. Thus, when the participant has a strong association for a specific pairing, their responses will be more rapid for pairings that favor their pairing association.

In an effort to explore my own implicit stereotypes, I took the Abled - Disabled IAT. The test results were consistent with my conscious beliefs and attitudes and even a little surprising. According to this IAT, I display a moderate preference for Diasbled Persons compared to Abled Persons. I was specifically interested in this test because I currently mentor Morgan, an 18-year old girl with Autism and easily-observable disabilities. My work with Morgan has further kindled an interest of mine in working with children and young adults with various disabilities. After reading about IATs and the often-surprising results they report, I was somewhat nervous to take the test in fear of discovering a preference for persons without disabilties. If anything, I expected the test to report little or no preference for either group and hoped I would not display a strong preference for Abled Persons.

I think the result of this IAT is consistent with my conscious beliefs and attitudes and reflects my "true" attitude regarding disability. When I took this test, I was under the assumption that I would display ingroup favoritism, a tendency to prefer groups with which I readily identify (Capozza & Brown, 2000). I do not personally identify with persons with disabilities because I have not been classified as disabled and assumed I would thus favor the Abled Persons category. However, it seems that by interacting with persons with disabilities, such as Morgan, my ingroup favoritism has decreased. According to Alport's contact hypothesis, my direct interactions with Morgan and other persons with disabilities has reduced my ingroup favoritism (Allport, 1954). It has also been noted that outgroup prejudice (prejudice towards people not belonging to an ingroup) is less intense for members of majority groups because they do not feel threatened by a minority status (Brewer & Pickett, 1999; Brewer, 2003). It is also thought that, when motivated, people are less likely to display ingroup favoritism (Sherif et al., 1961). Because I am paid to work with Morgan and I see this opportunity as one that will influence my future education and career, I am motivated not to see persons with disabilities as anything other than individuals. By viewing Morgan as an individual, I no longer classify her in predominantly stereotypical ways and reduce my ingroup favoritism.

I returned to the Abled - Disabled IAT and retested myself, attempting to increase the speed with which I responded to the items presented. Because I was more familiar with the test I felt I could attempt to speed up my responses a little more and that the increase in speed might give a more representative data set. Any actual increase in speed was marginal. Interestingly, my results suggested little or no automatic preference between Abled Persons and Disabled Persons. This is more in line with my initial predictions for an absence of preference for either group and failed to report ingroup favoritism on my part. The IAT seems an effective means of measuring general associations, but should not be taken as the "be all, end all" of associative measures. There are many factors that contribute to complex concepts of prejudice, stereotypes, and associations in general that cannot be fully encompassed by one test such as this. The main importance of the IAT, in my opinion, is that it serves as a tool to encourage participants to think about their implicit associations and to encourage further education and awareness of such issues. As in my case, exposure to outgroups and motivation to not exhibit ingroup favoritism can decrease negative associations.



Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison-Wesley.

Brewer, M. B. (2003). Optimal distinctiveness, social identity, and the self. In M. R. Leary & J. P. Tangney (eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 480-491). New York: Guilford.

Brewer, M. B., & Pickett, C. L. (1999). Distinctiveness motives as a source of the social self. In T. R. Tyler & R. M. Kramer (Eds.), The psychology of the social self: Applied social research (pp. 71-87). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

Capozza, D., & Brown, R. (2000). Social identity processes: Trends in theory and research. London: Sage.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4-27.

Sherif, M., Harvey, L. J., White, B. J., Hood, W. R., & Sherif, C. W. (1961). The Robbers Cave experiment: Intergroup conflict and cooperation. Middletown, CT: Wesleyan University Press. (Reprinted in 1988)

Ward, M. L., & friedman, K. (2006). Using TV as a guide: Associations between television viewing and adolescents' sexual attitudes and behavior. Journal of Research on Adolescence, 16, 133-156.

Ward, M. L., Hansbrough, E., & Walker, E. (2005). Contributions of music video exposure to black adolescents' gender and sexual schemas. Journal of Adolescent Research, 20, 143-166.