The Effects of Cognitive Load on Covert Stereotype Propensity
Abstract
In cognitive psychology people are often considered to be
limited capacity processors and when their capacities are strained, they are
susceptible to making mistakes and omissions. The literature has demonstrated
that cognitive load, by means of task engagement, facilitates overt
stereotyping by decreasing the capacity to self-monitor evidence of biases. The
present study was designed to test whether covert stereotyping, where the participant
is not aware of the stereotype being activated, is also facilitated by
cognitive load. This study
featured a 2 (Presentation: no task requirement vs. digit rehearsal task) X 2
(sex: male vs. female) X 2 (race: white vs. black) mixed factorial design with
the task condition manipulated within subjects. In the experimental
group, a number rehearsal task was used to administer cognitive load. Half of the participants were engaged in this
task and the other half, the control group, were simply given the same number
to observe, but they were not instructed to rehearse it. Both groups completed the Modern Racism
Scale. Because the scale assesses stereotyping propensity under the guise of
surveying political attitudes the scores on this scale are well accepted to
show a reliably positive correlation with covert stereotyping propensity. The
study found that there was not a statistically significant difference between
the control and experimental groups. Gender, but not race, produced significant
differences. The findings of this study suggest that cognitive load, through digit
rehearsal, does not lead to an increased propensity for covert stereotyping.
Introduction
Background
A great deal of research supports the
idea that both information processing demands (e.g. Bodenhausen & Wyer,
1985; Stangor and Duan, 1991) and information processing concerns (e.g. Erber
& Fiske, 1984; Pendry & Macrae, 1999) can strongly influence a
perceiver’s propensity to activate and apply stereotypes. Whether stereotyping, which is the
formulation an oversimplified or biased opinion, is intentional or automatic it
all too often results in the attribution of unfair negative characteristics to
out-group members (Pendry & Macrae, 1999).
These are normally the kind of negative associations that people do not
want to share publicly, and so if they can, they will attempt to monitor these,
disallowing them from their outward communications (Bodenhausen, 1990). Monitoring
outward communications in this way requires cognitive processing resources,
something that people have in limited supply.
A large body of research has shown
that when processing resources are low due to the fact that they are distributed
between different tasks, performance on each task suffers. Cognitive load (the detrimental
effect that task engagement has on the performance of working memory) can
affect many forms of parallel processing and can even impact the ability to
monitor prejudice within verbal discourse (Bodenhausen & Wyer, 1985). This literature has suggested explicitly that
most people continually utilize their processing resources to censor evidence
of their own biases and that this is made even more difficult under the
condition of cognitive load (Wyer & Martin, 1986). A deficit in mental resources caused by multiple
task engagement has been shown to influence individuals to make more prejudiced
responses by diminishing their capacity to inhibit biased personal thoughts and
subsequently to revise biased interpersonal language (Fiske & Neuberg,
1990).
Research has shown that a variety of
dissimilar methods for limiting a subject’s cognitive resources can result in
the preferential recall for stereotype-consistent information. Methods that involve distracting subjects
with an unrelated audio broadcast (Stangor & Duan, 1991), overwhelming them
by expecting them to observe multiple groups items (Stangor & Duan, 1993),
instructing them to engage in digit rehearsal tasks (Sherman, Lee, Bessenoff &
Frost, 1998), using other forms of rehearsal tasks (Pendry & Macrae, 1999) and
implementing a variety of other methods for administering cognitive load (Sherman
& Frost, 2000) have all been shown to increase the propensity for
stereotype formation. Each of the 5
studies cited above uses procedures to study stereotype formation that are
obvious to the participants. Even the
particular stereotype that they were trying to invoke can clearly be discerned
and each study assumed that the majority of participants would have wanted to
inhibit evidence of their prejudice but were less able to due to the
diminishment of their processing resources.
Stangor and Duan (1991) found that by
simply asking participants to attend to specific sounds during a radio
broadcast, that they could create cognitive load during task engagement. Here cognitive load vastly decreased the
ability of the participants to censor stereotype formation (p<.05). Two
years later, Stangor and Duan (1993) required that participants attend to
associations related to multiple out-groups, making it more difficult to
determine which stereotypes were being tested.
Again the experiment showed that cognitive load results in significant
(p<.05) increases in the number of stereotype related biases. Sherman et al. (1998) found similar results
five years later when distracting participants with a digit rehearsal task. This study, and their next one, (Sherman
& Frost, 2000) showed that digit rehearsal caused their participants to
become significantly (p<.05) less likely to inhibit evidence of bias despite
the fact that they recognized the majority of stereotypes presented to them.
Pendy and Macrae (1999) used either a series of letters or symbols for their
rehearsal task and, interestingly, they found that a significant (p<.05)
proportion of the participants in the experimental group reliably chose the
biased response while completing their stereotype identification task. Subsequent studies have replicated these
findings, lending support to the present research hypothesis. However, each of these studies relied on
overt stereotype formation, where the stereotype presented in each task is
easily identified and evidence of the subject’s identification of the
stereotype is clearly indicated by their response to the tasks questions
(Sherman & Frost, 2000). In other words, in these experiments, the subject
was should have been relatively aware each time they gave a biased response.
This is the
first experiment that uses a carefully constructed, covert survey instrument
like the Modern Racism Scale in an
experiment involving cognitive load. The Modern Racism Scale is designed to be
a nonreactive measure of prejudice presented under the guise of surveying
political attitudes (McConahay, Hardee & Batts, 1981). This guise puts
those surveyed at ease and makes them less conscious about the biases that
might be found in their responses. The use of such an instrument should test a
different hypothesis because, unlike the procedures used in the aforementioned
studies, it measures implicit as opposed to explicit stereotype formation.
This study was designed to determine how
cognitive load, in the form of a number rehearsal task, effects information
processing demands and relates to the propensity to activate stereotypes.
Prejudice will be assessed by the numerical score on the Modern Racism Scale (McConahay, 1986). This controlled experiment
required subjects to evaluate a questionnaire while performing a task designed
to increase cognitive load. The task
consisted of the memorization and constant rehearsal of a seven digit number
throughout the experimental proceedings, a common procedure for inducing
cognitive load (Sherman & Frost, 2000).
While the subject rehearsed this number the experimenter administered
the Modern Racism Scale, a survey where the subject finds it more difficult to
identify the stereotypes that they unwittingly activating and committing to
(Bodenhausen, 1990). The present researcher predicts that engagement in the
digit rehearsal task might lead to a diminishment in processing resources but
that because the stereotypes in this particular questionnaire are covert,
cognitive load will not will not increase stereotyping propensity. If this
hypothesized effect does occur it should be because when stereotype assessment
is covert, cognitive processing resources cannot help a person to inhibit
evidence of their mental biases.
Many people in modern society are
known to rely on stereotypes and use them as cognitive heuristics to inform
their schemas and to facilitate everyday information processing. Many group based stereotypes, though, have
the potential to harm ingroup and outgroup members. By determining which types of processing
modalities facilitate stereotyping, we can better understand how stereotypes
are actualized within an individual, how stereotypes are perpetuated and
possibly how prejudice, a culturally derisive phenomenon, can be better
mitigated.
Method
Participants
A total of
302 Pepperdine undergraduate students of ages 18 to 23 took part in this study.
Each of the 134 male and 168 female students had graduated from high school and
lived in the greater Los Angeles
area. 40 subjects were black, 262 subjects were white. Participants were recruited through the use
of flyers, and by word of mouth.
Design
The study was an experimental,
randomized controlled trial featuring a 2 (Presentation: no task requirement vs.
digit rehearsal task) X 2 (sex: male vs. female) X 2 (race: white vs. black)
mixed factorial design with the task condition manipulated within subjects.
The
variables in studies like this one have been clearly operationally defined and
this so should be relatively easy to replicate.
One factor that may affect internal validity is the assumption that
digit rehearsal increases stereotype propensity due to cognitive load. It is possible that frustration with task
requirements increase negative affect and for this reason increase stereotype
propensity. This is a very difficult
confounding factor to control but the literature generally accepts the notion
that digit rehearsal is a reliable task to administer cognitive load.
Experimenters were instructed to present the task requirements to participants
in a friendly, amiable manner in an effort to minimize negative affect.
Measures/Instruments
The materials
used included the McConahay (1986) Modern Racism Scale, which is administered
to test for subtle forms of racism that are prevalent in the modern day
US. This scale uses a response format
that asks participants to indicate their agreement numerically; with numbers
ranging from -2 (strongly disagree) to 0 (neither agree nor disagree) to +2
(strongly agree). A higher score on this
scale indicates more blatant racism, which will give us our measure of
stereotype formation.
A separate
demographic questionnaire followed the scale.
This questionnaire requested information about age, race, handedness,
sex and number of years in college. This
questionnaire did not request any information that would allow the participant
to be identified, allowing complete anonymity.
Procedures
Individuals
from this sample of convenience chose to participate in this experiment after
encountering flyers or verbal requests. The
study began with the participant being welcomed into the office by the
experimenter, escorted to a private room with a desk where they would remain
for the duration of the study. Next, the
participant was given a cover letter (Appendix B) and asked to fill out an
informed consent form (Appendix C) that advised them about the risks associated
with the study and required them to signature, indicating that they understood
and agreed to the details of the experiment.
Before the administration of the
questionnaires, one half of the subjects were randomly assigned to the task
engagement group and given 25 seconds to rehearse an 8 digit number. The participants in the task condition were
informed that upon completion of the experiment they will be required to
reproduce this number. Previous research
has consistently demonstrated that digit rehearsal tasks such as this one have
debilitating effects on processing resources.
That is, throughout the experimental task, they expend conscious
resources rehearsing the 8-digit number and this influences their allocation of
attentional resources to the experiment proper.
The control group was given 25
seconds to rehearse the same 8 digit number. Like the other group they were asked
to memorize it but then were told that they would not be asked to reproduce the
number upon completion of the experiment.
To ensure
anonymity all subjects were isolated from the other participants and, after the
necessary instructions had been given, from the experimenter as well. Written instructions informed subjects that
the questionnaire that they were expected to respond to was created to help
researchers better understand political attitudes.
Subjects
were then required to complete the seven-item Modern Racism Scale. This scale is designed to measure subject’s
racial stereotyping behavior in a covert, nonreactive fashion. Subjects responded to the questionnaire by
indicating if they agree or disagree with specific race-oriented
statements. The questionnaire took none
of the participants more than 20 minutes to complete.
Before
participants in the experimental group placed their questionnaires in their
envelope, as instructed, they were visited by an experimenter who requested
that they reproduce the number that they had been rehearsing. The experimenter then discarded any
questionnaires taken by subjects that could not reproduce the entire series of
numbers, these were not included in the statistical analyses. These questionnaires were discarded because
they may represent a case where the participant did not carefully rehearse
their number, did not experience cognitive load, and so did not fulfill the
requirements of the experiment. In fact, 27 questionnaires were discarded for
this very reason.
Subjects
placed their responses in an unmarked envelope, and then dropped the envelope
into the box that corresponded to their experimental group, both of which
contained many envelopes. Finally
subjects were debriefed and thanked for their participation.
Data
Analysis
The data collected were analyzed by
computing the mean scores on the Modern Racism Scale and using them to perform
a linear regression with score as the dependent variable and gender, race and
experimental group as the independent variables. It was assumed that the independent variables might be
correlated with one another, so a multiple regression analysis was also
performed in order to find out if the predictor variables add independent
information to the prediction equation. Differences between groups would only be
interpreted as significant if they satisfy a p-value less than .05.
Results
Supporting the hypothesis, there was
no significant difference in scores between the control group (M= -.403 ,SD= 1.212)
and the experimental group (M= -.423, SD=1.114) as measured by the
participant’s scores on the Modern Racism Scale (p-value <.05). It seems that task engagement did not
increase the propensity for a racist score (a higher score) on the racism
scale. The averages for individual groups are shown in table 1 below. The means
for each group were calculated by using the average score, from -2 to 2 for
each item on the scale rather than from the total score for each participant.
Table 1: Mean Scores for Control and Experimental Groups
Control Experimental
M SD n M SD n
Male -.561 2.42
70 -.580 2.07 64
Female -.286 1.03
83 -.305 1.19 85
Black -.413 2.13 18 -.391 2.22 22
White -.418 1.81 135 -.421 2.10 127
Total -.403
1.21 153 -.423 1.11 149
A linear regression was performed
with score on the Modern Racism Scale as the dependent variable, and 3
predictor or independent variables: gender, race and experimental group. The
regression equation from the data set was:
Predicted Score = -.726 + .133*Experimental
Group + .160*Gender + .149*Race
It seems that only gender, with a
significance level of .022, played a role as a significant factor (at a p level
<.05) in racism score. Neither
experimental group nor race was significant contributors to racism score. The
regression coefficients, starting with an intercept constant of -.726, for each
predictor were as follows: .133 for the experimental group, .160 for gender,
and .149 for race.
Discussion
Conclusions
The main hypothesis that task
engagement will have no effect on score on the Modern Racism Scale was supported.
This experiment suggests that sometimes situational characteristics may play a smaller
role in stereotype formation than once thought by others such as Spears and
Haslam (1997), Oakes and Turner (1990) and Medin (2000). Since the participants in the present study
were not exposed to blatant, overt depictions of stereotypical behavior, they
may not have formed stereotypes due to conscious, deliberative attempts to
understand social groups, but instead have automatically activated the
heuristic based stereotypes due to a paucity of processing resources. Why race did not produce significant results
is not known and the paucity of research in this area leaves this question open
to further investigation.
Because the scale that was used
measures covert bias, and because cognitive load did not affect stereotyping, the
current findings suggest that people do not engage in conscious self-monitoring
when they take the Modern Racism Scale. Knowledge that some forms of
stereotyping and racism can increase even when processing resources are at
their fullest may be informative for social psychology researchers (Fiske and Taylor (1991). This may be an important
issue and should motivate psychologists to determine exactly how and under what
circumstances cognitive load can create subconscious biases.
Previous studies have emphasized the
importance of analyzing the effects of cognitive load on stereotype formation
from a variety of perspectives in order to determine how stereotypes are formed
(Stangor & Duan, 1991; 1993). It
is suggested that future studies increase the sample size of the experimental
group to increase validity. It may also
be important to ensure that the number of black participants and the number of
male participants are increased in these samples because the present study had
a relatively low number of both of theses groups. The use of a more ethnically diverse sample,
along with other means of stereotype assessment should shed even more light on
the issue. It is also recommended that
future replications of this study design implement alternative forms of task
engagement (besides digit rehearsal) to administer cognitive load. This will allow researchers to better
understand how and why stereotypes are formulated outside of the experimental
sphere, in everyday interpersonal interactions.
References
Bodenhausen, G. V. (1987). Social
stereotypes and information-processing strategies: the impact of task
complexity. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 52,871-880.
Bodenhausen, G. V. & Wyer, R. S.
(1985). Effects of stereotypes on decision making and information processing
strategies. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 48,267-282.
Erber, R.
& Fiske, S. T. (1984). Outcome dependency and attention to inconsistent
information. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 47, 709-726.
Fiske, S.
T., & Neuberg, S. L. (1990). A continuum of impression formation, from
category based to individuating processes: Influences of information and
motivation on attention and interpretation. In M.P. Zanna (ed.), Advances in Experimental and Social
Psychology, (Vol. 23, pp. 1-74). New
York : Academic Press.
Fiske, S.
T. & Taylor, S.E. (1991). Social
Cognition. New York :
McGraw Hill.
McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern
racism, ambivalence, and the modern racism scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L.
Gaertner (eds.), Prejudice,
discrimination and racism (pp. 91- 126). New York : Academic.
McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B. &
Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined in America ? It depends on who is
asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563-579.
Medin, D.L. (2000) Are there kinds of
concepts? Annual Review of Psychology,
51,121-147.
Oakes, P.J. & Turner,
J.C. (1990). Is limited information processing the cause of social
stereotyping? European Review of Social Psychology, 11,111-135.
Pendry, L.F. & Macrae, C.N.
(1999). Cognitive load and person memory: the role of perceived group
variability. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 29,925-942.
Sherman, J. & Frost, L.A. (2000). On the
encoding of stereotype-relevant information under cognitive load. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26,
26-34.
Spears, R., Oakes, P.J.,
Ellemers, N. & Haslam , S.A. (eds.) (1997) The social
psychology of stereotyping and group life. Oxford ,
UK and Cambridge , MA :
Blackwell.
Stangor, C. & Duan C. (1991). Effects
of multiple task demands upon memory for information about social groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
27,357-378.
Stangor, C. & Duan C. (1993). Effects
of task demand upon stereotype formation. Journal
of Experimental Social Psychology, 29, 121-127.
Wyer, R. S. & Martin, L. L.
(1986). Person memory: The role of traits, group stereotypes, and specific
behaviors in the cognitive representation of persons. Journal
of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 661-675.
Appendix A
Demographic
Survey
1. What is your age? ______
2. How many years have you been in college? _______
3. What is your ethnicity? _______
4. Are you male or female? _______
5. Are you right or left handed? _______
Appendix B
Cover Letter for Proposed Research Study
June 1, 2006
Dear Prospective Participant,
You have been selected to participate in an experiment
that may have important ramifications for psychological research. Please review the information on the
following page in order to make a decision concerning your consent to
participate in this study. Also if you
choose to participate in this study please make an effort to follow the
guidelines given.
Sincerely,
Primary Investigator
Primary Investigator
Appendix C
Office for Protection of Research Subjects
General Campus Human Subject Protection Committee
CONSENT FORM FOR NON-MEDICAL RESEARCH
Consent to Participate in Research
The Effects of Task Engagement on
Stereotype Propensity and Score on the
Modern Racism Scale: An Experimental
Study
You are asked to participate in a
research study conducted by Jared Reser, from the psychology department at the University of Pepperdine . You were selected as a
possible participant in this study because you are in the psychology
undergraduate subject pool.
Purpose of the Study
This study has been designed to
investigate the subtleties of stereotype formation.
Procedures
If you volunteer to participate in
this study, we would ask you to do the following things:
You will be placed in a room by yourself and asked to look at or memorize an 8 digit number, you will then be asked to complete a questionnaire known as the Modern Racism Scale. When you are finished you will be asked to place your responses to the scale in an envelope to ensure anonymity.
You will be placed in a room by yourself and asked to look at or memorize an 8 digit number, you will then be asked to complete a questionnaire known as the Modern Racism Scale. When you are finished you will be asked to place your responses to the scale in an envelope to ensure anonymity.
Potential Risks and Discomforts
You may feel uncomfortable while
rehearsing the 8 digit number or you may feel uncomfortable while filling out
the scale. If the discomfort is
appreciable we ask that you inform an experimenter and we will discontinue the
study.
Potential Benefits to Subjects and/or Society
There are no expected benefits for
the subject, however, this study should contribute to knowledge about
stereotype formation that may help to palliate stereotypy and racism.
Payment for Participation
The subject will not receive payment
for participation, but is eligible to receive class credit as specified by
their current course instructors.
Confidentiality
Any
information that is obtained in connection with this study and that can be
identified with you will remain confidential and will be disclosed only with
you permission or as required by law.
Identification of Investigators
If
you have any questions or concerns about the research, please contact Jared
Reser at jared@jaredreser.com.
Rights of Research Subjects
You
may withdraw your consent at any time and discontinue participation without
penalty.
SIGNATURE
OF RESEARCH SUBJECT OR LEGAL REPRESENTATIVE
I
understand the procedures described above. My questions have been answered to
my satisfaction, and I agree to participate in this study. I have been given a copy of this form.
__________________________
Name
of Subject
__________________________
Signature
of Subject
__________________________
Date
No comments:
Post a Comment