Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin

 

Advanced Search

Journal Navigation

Journal Home

Subscriptions

Archive

Contact Us

Table of Contents

Click here for more information

Sign In to gain access to subscriptions and/or personal tools.
This Article
Right arrow Full Text (PDF)
Right arrow References
Right arrow Alert me when this article is cited
Right arrow Alert me if a correction is posted
Right arrow Citation Map
Services
Right arrow Email this article to a friend
Right arrow Similar articles in this journal
Right arrow Similar articles in ISI Web of Science
Right arrow Similar articles in PubMed
Right arrow Alert me to new issues of the journal
Right arrow Add to Saved Citations
Right arrow Download to citation manager
Right arrowRequest Permissions
Right arrow Request Reprints
Right arrow Add to My Marked Citations
Google Scholar
Right arrow Articles by Livingston, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Sinclair, L.
PubMed
Right arrow PubMed Citation
Right arrow Articles by Livingston, S. D.
Right arrow Articles by Sinclair, L.
Social Bookmarking
Add to CiteULike   Add to Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us   Add to Digg   Add to Reddit   Add to Technorati  
What's this?
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Vol. 34, No. 2, 210-223 (2008)
DOI: 10.1177/0146167207310028
© 2008 Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.

Taking the Watchdog Off Its Leash: Personal Prejudices and Situational Motivations Jointly Predict Derogation of a Stigmatized Source

Stephen D. Livingston

Ohio State University, steve.livingston{at}utoronto.ca.

Lisa Sinclair

University of Winnipeg, l.sinclair{at}uwinnipeg.ca.

Lower- and higher-prejudiced individuals may strategically derogate negatively stereotyped individuals. Regardless of degree of prejudice, participants with a directional goal to discredit a threatening message and its source were more likely to do so when the source belonged to a negatively stereotyped group. They also were less persuaded by that stigmatized source. When this directional goal was negated by making the message nonthreatening, lower-prejudiced individuals evaluated the stigmatized and nonstigmatized sources, and their messages, similarly and were equally persuaded by both sources. When an accuracy goal was simultaneously introduced, lower-prejudice participants again rated the stigmatized and nonstigmatized sources comparably yet continued to derogate the stigmatized speaker's message and were less persuaded by him. Removing the directional goal or adding the accuracy goal did not affect higher-prejudiced participants' evaluations. The importance of examining situational goals and individual differences when studying biased responding is discussed.

Key Words: directional motivation • accuracy motivation • discrimination • persuasion • prejudice


Add to CiteULike CiteULike   Add to Connotea Connotea   Add to Del.icio.us Del.icio.us   Add to Digg Digg   Add to Reddit Reddit   Add to Technorati Technorati    What's this?