There is little consensus in the social-cognitive literature concerning the way in which prejudice and stereotyping are related, though a number of explanatory models have been proposed. The present research program empirically examines one recent model; Lepore and Brown's Associative Strength Model (ASM: 1997; 1999; 2002). The main premise of the ASM is that differential endorsement of stereotypic content leads to individual variation in the content that is automatically activated upon categorisation. Specifically, it predicts that high-prejudice people automatically activate negative stereotypic traits, and low-prejudice people automatically activate positive stereotypic traits. The current research used a primed lexical decision task to examine prejudicelinked differences in automatic stereotype activation. In addition, an impression formation task based on that of Lepore and Brown was included to measure stereotype application. Experiments 1A and 1B attempted to evaluate the predictions of the ASM using the category and stereotype of Asians. However, neither experiment was able to demonstrate a priming effect, prejudice-linked or otherwise, using this social category. Experiments 2 and 3, in contrast, successfully induced stereotype activation using the category of gay men. Furthermore, results were consistent with the predictions of the ASM. After priming with the category of gay men, high-prejudice participants exhibited greater activation of negative stereotypic traits and low-prejudice participants exhibited greater activation of positive stereotypic traits. However, parallel patterns of stereotype application were not found in the impression formation task, with participants forming positive impressions, regardless of prejudice. Experiment 4 used an honesty manipulation to investigate the possibility that self-presentational concerns were responsible for the discrepancies between stereotype activation and application. Consistent with this argument, Experiment 4 found prejudice-linked patterns of stereotype application that mirrored the patterns of stereotype activation when self-presentation concerns were reduced. When instructed to be honest, high-prejudice participants in the gay prime condition formed negative impressions and low-prejudice participants in the gay prime condition formed positive impressions. The current program of research provides the first direct empirical support for the predictions of the Associative Strength Model concerning stereotype activation. In addition, new questions have been raised that future research should seek to explore.

No description available.

The current study examines the effect of religious orientation, social dominance orientation, right wing authoritarianism, and group socialization on the degree to which covert prejudice beliefs are endorsed. This study is novel in that individual and intergroup factors are simultaneously considered. Unlike much of the existing research, the study measures all six types of religious orientation for a nuanced examination of the different approaches to religion and the effect this has on attitude formation and maintenance. The study also demonstrates higher levels of generalizability in that questionnaires were distributed to a diverse sample and also considered many forms of discrimination (racism, sexism, classism, and heterosexism). Additionally, relevant prejudice measures that better represent covert, modern day prejudice are used in the current study. Social dominance orientation (SDO) was strongly and positively correlated with all four types of subtle prejudice. In hierarchical regression modeling, right wing authoritarianism was the strongest predictor variable for all prejudice outcome variables. SDO was the second strongest predictor for all variables except for benevolent sexism. Demographic and religious orientation predictors varied by prejudice outcome variable. Only immanence and intrinsic emerged as significant religious orientations predictors. Multiple regression models with only religious orientation predictors were also conducted to examine the relationship of each religious orientation to each prejudice when the other religious orientations were held constant. Different trends for different prejudice attitudes were found for intrinsic and immanence orientations. Quest orientation was negatively correlated with prejudice and extrinsic religious orientation was positively correlated with prejudice for all prejudice outcome variables. Increasing intolerance with more indiscriminately pro- or anti-religious responding was not elicited. Instead a pattern of increasing pro-religiosity was related to higher prejudice scores. Progressive congregational factors correlated with lower colorblind racial attitudes, benevolent sexism, classism, and homonegativity among congregants.

The aims of the current research program were to examine the social-cognitive and sociological models of stigma in relation to student attitudes towards an individual experiencing a mood disorder. Two experiments (Studies 1 and 2) sought to empirically distinguish between controllability and responsibility, both constructs of the attribution model which is subsidiary to the social-cognitive model of stigma. Despite manipulating controllability, participants were reluctant to attribute controllability of cause to individuals experiencing depression or bipolar disorder. The stability of beliefs about the controllability of cause for condition onset was consistent with research suggesting that the Australian public increasingly conceptualise mental disorders in terms of biochemical and genetic causal factors. These findings, in combination with past research linking biogenetic beliefs to negative attitudes, resulted in a change in focus of investigation in Studies 3, 4, 5 and 6 to explain why, contrary to the prediction of the attribution model, biogenetic explanations of mental disorders are associated with the proliferation of stigma. To measure causal beliefs, the Causal Belief Inventory (CBI) was developed in Study 3 and refined in Study 4. The correlational results examined in Studies 4, 5 and 6 found that genetic and biochemical causal beliefs were associated with a number of positive attitudes towards individuals experiencing a mood disorder and that genetic cause was associated with a reduced implicit bias against major depression. Furthermore, each study pointed to the centrality of judgments of differentness in determining affective responses and direct and proxy measures of behaviour. In contrast, manipulation of genetic and psychosocial cause in Study 5 found that causal condition largely failed to impact upon student attitudes. Mediator analysis did, however, find that beliefs about the stability of the vignette actor's condition fully mediated the relationship between the negative influence of genetic cause on proxy helping behaviour. Manipulation of psychosocial, genetic and biochemical cause with the inclusion of a non-depressed control in Study 6 resulted in more ambiguous findings. The combination of findings from Studies 1 to 6 suggest that focusing on the impact of the controllability of cause of depression onset on student attitudes is unwarranted. Instead researchers and public health educators should be examining models which facilitate the examination of the cognitive factors that mediate these relationships. Two such models, namely the social-cognitive and sociological models of stigma, were found to adequately fit the data. Recommendations for integrating these two models of stigma are discussed.