The authors provide evidence for a new mechanism for the more polarized evaluations of stigmatized than nonstigmatized target individuals that often follow positive versus negative target descriptions. The current research suggests that polarization can occur because low-prejudiced perceivers think more about information describing stigmatized than nonstigmatized targets (i.e., have polarized thoughts). Mediational path analyses revealed that polarized thoughts fully accounted for the impact of prejudice on evaluative polarization. These findings are most consistent with the watchdog hypothesis that people scrutinize information describing stigmatized targets in order to guard against possibly unfair reactions by themselves or others.
Aiken, L. S. , & West, S. G. (1991). Multiple regression: Testing and interpreting interactions. Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
2.
Bell, D. W. , & Esses, V. M. (2002). Ambivalence and response amplification: A motivational perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1143-1152.
3.
Biernat, M. , Manis, M., & Nelson, T. E. (1991). Stereotypes and standards of judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 60, 485-499.
4.
Branscombe, N. R. , Wann, D. L., Noel, J. G., & Coleman, J. (1993). In-group or out-group extremity: Importance of the threatened social identity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 19, 381-388.
5.
Cacioppo, J. T. , & Petty, R. E. (1981). Social psychological procedures for cognitive response assessment: The thought-listing technique. In T. Merluzzi, C. Glass, & M. Genest (Eds.), Cognitive assessment (pp. 309-342). New York: Guilford.
6.
Carver, C. S. , Gibbons, F. X., Stephan, W. G., Glass, D. G., & Katz, I. (1979). Ambivalence and evaluative response amplification. Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 13, 50-52.
7.
Cronbach, L. J. (1951). Coefficient alpha and the internal structure of tests. Psychometrika, 16, 297-334.
8.
Devine, P. G. , & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139-1150.
9.
Dienstbier, R. A. (1970). Positive and negative prejudice: Interactions of prejudice with race and social desirability. Journal of Personality, 38, 198-215.
10.
Gergen, K. J. , & Jones, E. E. (1963). Mental illness, predictability, and affective consequences as stimulus factors in person perception. Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 67, 95-104.
11.
Gibbons, F. X. , Stephan, W. G., Stephenson, B., & Petty, C. R. (1980). Reactions to stigmatized others: Response amplification vs sympathy. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 16, 591-605.
12.
Hass, R. G. , Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Eisenstadt, D. (1991). Cross-racial appraisal as related to attitude ambivalence and cognitive complexity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 17, 83-92.
13.
Hass, R. G. , Katz, I., Rizzo, N., Bailey, J., & Moore, L. (1992). When racial ambivalence evokes negative affect, using a disguised measure of mood. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 18, 786-797.
14.
Jöreskog, K. G. , & Sörbom, D. (1996). Lisrel 8: User’s reference guide. Chicago: Scientific Software International.
15.
Jussim, L. , Coleman, L. M., & Lerch, L. (1987). The nature of stereotypes: A comparison and integration of three theories. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 52, 536-546.
16.
Kaplan, K. J. (1972). On the ambivalence-indifference problem in attitude theory and measurement: A suggested modification of the semantic differential technique. Psychological Review, 77, 361-372.
17.
Katz, I. , & Glass, D. C. (1979). An ambivalence-amplification theory of behavior toward the stigmatized. In W. Austin & S. Worchel (Eds.), The psychology of intergroup relations. Monterey, CA: Brooks/Cole.
18.
Katz, I. , & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.
19.
Katz, I. , Wackenhut, J., & Hass, R. G. (1986). Racial ambivalence, value duality, and behavior. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 35-59). New York: Academic Press.
20.
Linville, P. W. (1982). The complexity-extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 42, 193-211.
21.
Linville, P. W. , & Jones, E. E. (1980). Polarized appraisals of out-group members. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 689-703.
22.
Maio, G. R. , Bell, D. W., Esses, V. M. (1996). Ambivalence and persuasion: The processing of messages about immigrant groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 513-536.
23.
Marques, J. M. (1990). The black-sheep effect: Out-group homogeneity in social comparison settings. In D. Abrams and M. A. Hogg (Eds.), Social identity theory: Constructive and critical advances. New York: Springer-Verlag.
24.
Marques, J. M. , Robalo, E. M., & Rocha, S. A. (1992). Ingroup bias and the “black sheep” effect: Assessing the impact of social identification and perceived variability on group judgments. European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 331-352.
25.
Marques, J. M. , & Yzerbyt, V. Y. (1988). The black sheep effect: Judgmental extremity towards ingroup members in inter- and intragroup situations. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 287-292.
26.
Marques, J. M. , Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Leyens, J.-Ph. (1988). The “black sheep effect”: Extremity of judgments towards ingroup members as a function of group identification. European Journal of Social Psychology, 18, 1-16.
27.
McConahay, J. B. , Hardee, B. B., & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism declined? It depends upon who’s asking and what is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution, 25, 563-579.
28.
Monteith, M. J. (1993). Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: Implications for progress in prejudice reduction efforts. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 563-579.
29.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1979). Issue involvement can increase or decrease persuasion by enhancing message-relevant cognitive responses. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37, 1915-1926.
30.
Petty, R. E. , & Cacioppo, J. T. (1986). Communication and persuasion: Central and peripheral routes to attitude change. New York: Springer-Verlag.
31.
Petty, R. E. , Fleming, M. A., & White, P. H. (1999). Stigmatized sources and persuasion: Prejudice as a determinant of argument scrutiny. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 19-34.
32.
Petty, R. E. , & Wegener, D. T. (1998). Attitude change: Multiple roles for persuasion variables. In D. Gilbert, S. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology (4th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 323-390). New York: McGraw-Hill.
33.
Priester, J. R. , & Petty, R. E. (1996). The gradual threshold model of ambivalence: Relating the positive and negative bases of attitudes to subjective ambivalence. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71, 431-449.
34.
Sargent, M. J. , & Bradfield, A. L. (2004). Race and information processing in criminal trials: Does the defendant’s race affect how the facts are evaluated?Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30, 995-1008.
35.
Scott, W. A. (1962). Cognitive complexity and cognitive flexibility. Sociometry, 25, 405-414.
36.
Scott, W. A. (1969). Structure of natural cognitions. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 12, 261-278.
37.
Thompson, M. M. , Zanna, M. P., & Griffin, D. W. (1995). Let’s not be indifferent about (attitudinal) ambivalence. In R. E. Petty & J. A. Krosnick (Eds.), Attitude strength: Antecedents and consequences (pp. 361-386). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
38.
White, P. H. , & Harkins, S. G. (1994). Race of source effects in the Elaboration Likelihood Model. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 790-807.
