UNDER REVIEW PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION

Implicit group evaluation UNDER REVIEW PLEASE DO NOT CITE WITHOUT PERMISSION RUNNING HEAD: Implicit group evaluation Implicit Group Evaluation: Ingroup Preference, Outgroup Preference and the Rapid Creation of Implicit Attitudes Kristin A Lane, Jason P Mitchell, and Mahzarin R Banaji Harvard University Word count: 4,857 Address correspondence to: Kristin Lane 33 Kirkland Street – Room 1580 Department of Psychology Harvard University Cambridge, MA 02138 lane@wjh.harvard.edu Implicit group evaluation Abstract First-year and upper-class undergraduates showed strong implicit preference for their university over its competitor (ingroup favoritism) However, implicit preferences for residential colleges (RCs) within the university differed by status of the RC in the local university culture, despite the fact that RC membership was randomly assigned (ingroup and outgroup favoritism) Consistent with system justification theory, lower-status RC members showed depressed implicit ingroup preference Both studies also demonstrated the rapid creation of both ingroup and outgroup favoritism as early as the first week of school, suggesting that sustained experience with the attitude object is not necessary for the development of implicit attitudes Findings support both the ubiquitous result of ingroup preference and its less examined opposite, outgroup preference The rapid development of both ingroup and outgroup favoritism in two studies suggests that group hierarchies are detected and internalized very quickly Keywords: attitudes, implicit, system justification, ingroup bias, outgroup preference, attitude formation Implicit group evaluation Implicit Group Evaluation: Ingroup Preference, Outgroup Preference and the Rapid Creation of Implicit Attitudes Among psychology’s most fundamental assumptions is that people are strongly bound to their groups That people disproportionately favor their own groups – in attitudes, beliefs, and behavior – is supported by observations and experiments Research has shown that ingroup favoritism prevails even when group membership is the result of arbitrary assignment (Tajfel, Billig, Bundy & Flament, 1971) Indeed, research using “minimal groups” demonstrates that even when no pre-existing or lasting connection with a group exists, members rate their ingroups more positively (e.g., Gaertner, Mann, Murrell & Dovidio, 1989), disproportionately allocate resources to the ingroup, (e.g., Tajfel et al.), and ascribe more positive traits to their own group than to an outgroup (Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996) It may be argued that ingroup favoritism appears because of a motive to demonstrate support for one’s own group Yet observations of ingroup favoritism go beyond self-report measures Several studies have demonstrated that people show preference for arbitrarily assigned ingroups on indirect attitude measures that tap spontaneous, less deliberate responses For example, implicit preference for one’s ingroup followed assignment to an arbitrary group (Ashburn-Nardo, Voils & Montieth, 2001; Otten & Wentura, 1999) When placed into an arbitrary group, people clearly favor their own group over other groups on direct and indirect measures Thus, although self-report measures of ingroup favoritism may be suspect due to demand to show ingroup favoritism, measures that bypass such concerns continue to show strong support for it Moreover, these ingroup preferences are not merely hothouse effects cultivated in the laboratory – social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986), draws extensively on ‘real-world’ observations of ingroup favoritism The past 30 years of evidence shows that ingroup favoritism is a robust and nearly ubiquitous fact of social life Given the apparent inescapability of ingroup favoritism, observations of outgroup preference may at first seem paradoxical Nevertheless, beginning with Clark and Clark’s (1947) observations that Black children preferred White dolls over Black dolls, social psychologists have demonstrated that, rather than being inevitable, ingroup favoritism is occasionally replaced by outgroup preference (e.g., Hewstone & Ward, 1985; Jost & Burgess, 2000; Mlicki & Ellemers, 1996) For example, women acknowledge that they are less competent than men in domains such as math, African-Americans endorse the notion that they are more hostile and less intelligent than other groups, and the poor indicate that they are not as hardworking as the rich (Jost & Banaji, 1994; in press) These observations are consistent with meta-analyses indicating that members of low-status groups, compared to members of high-status groups, show reduced ingroup positivity (compared to an outgroup) on a variety of affective, cognitive and behavioral measures (Bettencourt, Dorr, Charlton & Hume, 2001; Mullen, Brown & Smith, 1992) In order to reconcile observations of outgroup preference with social identity theory, Jost and Banaji (1994) proposed system justification theory System justification theory begins with the assumption that, all things being equal, individuals will prefer their groups over others; that is, they will show ingroup favoritism However, members of low-status groups face a problem culturally shared negative attitudes about their group conflict with the tendency toward ingroup preference Data show that members of low-status groups endorse negative ingroup stereotypes Implicit group evaluation and show decreased ingroup preference, and may internalize status differences even when the resulting social arrangement is detrimental to them At the same time, data support the idea that explicit, self-report measures may underestimate the strength of outgroup preference (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Jost & Banaji, in press) That is, when groups differ in their position in an evaluative hierarchy (a system in which groups differ in their cultural affective evaluation), indirect measures should tap the internalization of the dominant cultural attitudes to a greater extent than more direct measures Consistent with this, Black-Americans explicitly report strong ingroup preference but show no such implicit ingroup preference Likewise, the elderly report greater liking for their own group than younger adults on explicit measures, but show strong implicit preference for young over old (Nosek, Greenwald & Banaji, 2002; see also Hummert, Garstka, O’Brien, Greenwald & Mellot, 2002) Outgroup preference on implicit measures has been shown in other groups, including the poor, the obese (Rudman, Feinberg & Fairchild, 2002), and students at a lower-status university (Jost, Pelham & Carvallo, 2002) Focusing on implicit attitudes, we postulate that when groups have relatively equal evaluative status in the culture, members of each group will show approximately similar patterns of implicit ingroup preference Japanese-Americans and Korean-Americans showed exactly this pattern (Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998) However, when evaluative hierarchies are present that is, when groups differ in their overall cultural evaluation we predict that members of lower-status groups will show reduced implicit ingroup favoritism and may even demonstrate outgroup preference (Jost & Banaji, 1994; in press) Importantly, because formation of such evaluative hierarchies can occur following the most innocuous and arbitrary group division (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993), we expect that status differences will emerge even when groups are similar in access to real resources or in the stereotypes applied to them Unlike previous work on system justification, we focus on groups that are formed by random assignment and not differ in any real sense Because these conditions are unrelated to material resources, the groups possess none of the characteristics of stigmatized groups (Crocker, Major & Steele, 1998), and are not highly differentiated by stereotypes, the emergence of outgroup preferences would demonstrate that system justification can operate even when group differences are not derived from conflict over tangible resources As such, these studies provide a more stringent test of system justification theory’s main tenet of outgroup favoritism Overview of the Current Research In the present study, we examined (a) implicit ingroup favoritism (for which some evidence exists), (b) implicit outgroup favoritism (the more controversial and less-substantiated hypothesis) and (c) the speed with which such attitudes develop As such, we measured attitudes toward students’ universities (Yale and Harvard) and Yale’s smaller residential colleges (RCs), which subtly differ in their position in the evaluative hierarchy around campus (i.e., there is consensus that some RCs are better than others) Because membership in a particular RC is not linked to greater material resources or prestige, the emergence of differences in evaluation would suggest that any system, no matter how arbitrary, will form a hierarchy (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993) Moreover, measures of implicit evaluation should detect internalization of a group’s position in the hierarchy Implicit group evaluation Unlike previous work, in which groups were either known to participants or experimentally manipulated to differ widely from one another (Jost & Banaji, 1994; Mullen et al., 1992), we used real-world groups in which differences are subtle and known only to members of a small and intimate community and which lack any realistic conflict Finally, by looking for outgroup preference even when membership is randomly determined, we challenge social identity theory’s expectation that ingroup liking is inevitable after arbitrary group assignment Study 1a was conducted during the first week of the academic year, when first-year students were new to both university and RC Consequently, first-years are referred to as the ‘low experience’ group Upper-class students, are referred to as the ‘high experience group.’ Study 1b replicated the first study in a second pair of RCs a few weeks later Similar patterns of data in the low-experience groups would strengthen our claim that implicit attitudes develop rapidly, whereas differences between these groups would suggest a more gradual development of implicit evaluations A secondary and small data collection tested the same predictions regarding university attitudes among Harvard students At Yale, the RCs are the center of undergraduate life Importantly, students are randomly assigned to their RCs and are affiliated with them throughout college Although RCs differ somewhat in architecture and location, no obvious or systematic differences exist We focus on the overall evaluation of the RCs (that is, the extent to which they are positively or negatively evaluated), rather than any specific beliefs or stereotypes students may hold about them With few exceptions (e.g., legacies1), students cannot choose their RC The RCs, therefore, provide an important group identity created by random assignment We selected RCs for which spatial proximity and architectural style created natural pairs2 and tested three predictions First, implicit attitudes toward the university were expected to be strong and positive, demonstrating a clear ingroup preference While students at a prestigious university implicitly prefer their school relative to a less-prestigious university (Stanford versus San Jose State, Jost et al., 2002), we worked with socially equal institutions The combination of students’ university affiliation, coupled with the perceived equal status of Yale and Harvard, ought to result in strong positivity toward university If Sidanius and Pratto’s (1993) suggestion that “all social systems will converge toward the establishment of stable group-based social hierarchies” (p 177; see also Sidanius & Pratto, 1999) is correct, evaluative status differences will emerge among the RCs Second, we tested the less intuitive thesis that if such an evaluative hierarchy exists, it will be learned and internalized by members of both high and low-status groups Following system justification theory (Jost & Banaji, 1994), we predict that students in lower-evaluative-status colleges will have less implicit positivity toward their RC than students in higher-status ones Finally, we examined the time course within which such preferences are formed If sustained experience with a target object is required for attitudes to form toward it (e.g., Fazio, 1993; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell & Kardes, 1986), then attitudes of new group members should differ from those of experienced group members On the other hand, if automatic attitudes exist even in the absence of direct experience (Bargh, Chaiken, Govender & Pratto, 1992; Bargh, Chaiken, Raymond & Hynes, 1996; Duckworth, Bargh, Garcia & Chaiken, 2002), new and old Implicit group evaluation group members should display similar ingroup attitudes Such findings would provide additional support for the ubiquity of system justification – that the process of justifying the system begins when one is randomly placed into a low-status group, rather than after extensive time in a culture that favors certain groups Although first-year students planned for their application and arrival at Yale, they lacked upper-class students’ sustained experience with it Furthermore, upon arrival they had virtually no direct experience with their RC If sustained experience is required to create an implicit positive attitude toward Yale, then upper-class students should show stronger liking for Yale than first-year students Similarly, to the extent that evaluative group hierarchies are internalized only after sustained experience with the group, first-year students in both high- and low-status RCs should show strong implicit liking for their own RC; in contrast, upper-class students’ attitudes should differ by RC due to their experience with the evaluative hierarchy On the other hand, if implicit preferences form quickly and without much experience, then both new and experienced students should show similar attitudes that reflect the existing hierarchy That is, students of all years in high-status RCs should show stronger implicit preference for their RC than those in the low-status RCs To examine these questions, students completed measures of implicit and explicit attitude toward Yale and their RC, as well as their level of identification with Yale and their RC In addition, because social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and more recent restatements of cognitive consistency (Greenwald et al., 2002) predict that positivity toward self ought to be related to positive regard for one’s groups, participants also completed a measure of implicit selfesteem Testing was done during the first week of the academic year (Study 1a) and again a few weeks later (Study 1b) Method Participants A total of 151 Yale undergraduates participated in Study 1a and 158 in Study 1b in exchange for candy Five participants were excluded due to failure to follow directions or complete the task Materials Implicit Measures The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald et al., 1998) measures relatively automatic aspects of social cognition by yielding estimates of the strength of association between target concepts (e.g., Yale, Harvard) and evaluation (good, bad) and identity (me, not-me) Participants classified words as being related to one of two target categories (e.g., Yale or Harvard), while simultaneously categorizing words as being related to one of two attributes (e.g., Good or Bad) Each category shared a response with each attribute for one block Responses were expected to be faster in the block in which closely associated concepts were paired (e.g., for our participants, Yale and good) Six IATs were administered A practice task assessed relative attitudes toward flowers and insects The critical tasks measured (a) university attitude, (b) RC attitude, (c) university identification, (d) RC identification, and (e) self-esteem Three stimuli represented each concept Implicit group evaluation (e.g., Bulldog, for YALE; Cambridge for HARVARD; RC names and common abbreviations for RCs) Two sets of evaluative stimuli connoted the attributes GOOD (e.g., awesome) and BAD (e.g., terrible) Table summarizes measures and stimuli Participants completed a paper-and-pencil version of the IAT The logic of the paper-andpencil task is the same as that of the more traditional response latency version (Greenwald et al., 1998) although the dependent variable and implementation differ As in the computerized IAT, each concept is paired with each attribute for one block Each block was presented on a single page in a packet Each page contained a column of words with stimuli from the concept (e.g., Yale and Harvard) and attribute categories (e.g., Good and Bad) in a random order A circle was printed to the left and right of each item Category reminders were above each column of circles Participants had 20 seconds to categorize as many words as possible by checking the appropriate (left or right) circle The dependent measure was the difference in the number of items completed in the two blocks Explicit and Demographic Measures Three items assessed participants’ explicit Yale attitude (e.g., “I believe that Yale is the best university in the nation”) Two items related to each of Yale identity, and RC attitude and identity All items were presented on a to scale Participants also ranked Yale on a scale of (worst possible college choice) to 10 (best possible college choice) Participants listed the undergraduate schools to which they had applied in the order of preference at time of application, and indicated whether they had applied to Harvard, and if so, the outcome of their application Students not admitted to Harvard also indicated whether they thought they would have attended had they been offered admission Finally, participants provided demographic information, and indicated whether they were a legacy, transferred to Yale or had applied early decision3 Presentation All measures were in a packet The first two pages, in order, were always the practice flower+good block, and the flower+bad block The remaining tasks followed in one of two random orders, with the two blocks of the same IAT never appearing consecutively Task orders and sets of evaluative words were fully counterbalanced Explicit and demographic questions followed the IATs Procedure Participants were tested individually or in groups in a quiet area of the RC dining halls The experimenter explained the task and reminded participants to move down the column without skipping words, to begin the second column if they completed the first, and to work quickly but to try to avoid mistakes After answering questions, the experimenter said “Start,” and “Stop” at the beginning and end of each 20-second period Participants then completed the 10 critical IAT blocks After completing the implicit measures, each participant filled out the explicit and demographic questionnaires Results and Discussion Implicit group evaluation Data Preparation Although most tests using the IAT are computerized, paper-pencil versions have been used occasionally (e.g., Lowrey, Hardin & Sinclair, 2001) Relatively less is known about the parameters of such measures The scoring procedures used in these studies evolved in this laboratory over the course of analyzing several data sets, and are presented here for the first time Ten participants who averaged 20% or more errors on the critical blocks were excluded Any individual IAT with more than 20% errors or fewer than eight items completed on either block was also excluded (approximately 6% of non-practice IATs) The following transformation is based on analyses of simulated data sets that mirror the distribution of general IAT effects Compared to a number of alternatives, this algorithm best accounts for the difference between the number of items completed and overall participant speed IAT effects were calculated as: ± [maximum/ minimum] *√(maximum - minimum), where maximum is the number of correctly categorized items on the block for which participants completed more correct items, and minimum is the number of items correctly categorized on the block for which they completed fewer correct items Values were multiplied by negative one if maximum corresponded to the incompatible block This transformation is correlated with raw difference scores (r = 98 using Fisher’s r-to-z transformation), but adjusts for participant speed (Nosek & Lane, 1999) Although statistics were performed on transformed scores, raw difference scores are reported for ease of interpretation Mean scores indicate the difference between the number of items completed between the two blocks, with higher scores reflecting stronger positivity or identity toward one’s ingroup Unless indicated, the pattern of results for the studies was identical, and analyses are combined Classification of students as ‘low-experience’ (first semester at Yale) or ‘highexperience’ (all others) resulted in roughly equal cell ns Analyses are collapsed across task order and evaluative word sets, which did not influence the results Attitudes toward and identification with University Consistent with the seemingly ubiquitous finding of ingroup bias, participants demonstrated strong implicit preference for Yale over Harvard: participants completed more items in the Yale+good block (M = 26.0), than in the Yale+bad block (M = 18.7), reflecting a strong preference for Yale, t (270) = 24.25, p < 0001, Cohen’s d = 1.48 Similarly, participants completed approximately 23.6 items on the Yale+self block, compared to approximately 15.9 items on the Yale+other block, reflecting strong implicit identification with Yale over Harvard, t(258) = 26.19, p < 0001 d = 1.63 Social identity theory (Tajfel & Turner, 1986) and a recent reinterpretation of cognitive consistency theories (Greenwald et al., 2002) suggest that ingroup liking and self-esteem ought to be positively related Consistent with this idea, a recent meta-analysis found that self-esteem was positively related to the degree of ingroup bias (Aberson, Healy & Romero, 2000), such that people who feel more positively toward themselves also feel more positively toward their groups In line with these findings, implicit attitude toward Yale and the self were positively related, r (258) = 25, p < 0001 If little experience is necessary for the formation of implicit attitudes, then first-year and upper-class students should have similarly strong attitudes toward Yale In fact, first-year Implicit group evaluation students showed slightly stronger implicit preference for Yale (M diff = 7.8) than upper-class students (M diff = 7.0), t (196) = 1.91, p = 06, d = 27 As on the implicit measures, students’ explicit attitude toward Yale (M = 5.7, SD = 1.03), d = 1.62, was positive and strong There were no consistent effects of experience on explicit liking for Yale, with both groups showing equally strong positive attitudes.4 A smaller data collection was conducted at Harvard During the first week of the academic year, 30 students (23 first-years, upper-class) completed a computerized IAT that measured implicit evaluations of Harvard relative to Yale In line with Yale undergraduates, both first-year (d = 1.04) and upper-class (d = 96) Harvard students showed a strong and positive implicit attitude toward their university during the first week of the Fall semester In other words, students of all years at both universities showed strong ingroup liking for their group Two main findings emerge from the data so far Implicit attitude toward one’s university is positive and strong, supporting theories that centrally invoke the notion of ingroup preference Second, such attitudes are acquired early and may be partially a function of attitudes toward the self, as seen by the lack of difference in positivity between groups of differing experience and relation of university attitude to self-esteem Attitudes toward and identification with RCs Unlike universities, RCs lack recognition outside the university and are not known to differ in status – they are intended to be a “microcosm of the larger student population” (Yale University, 2003) To an observer watching students eat from china with their RC’s pattern, all seem to evoke a similar sense of high-status However, RCs develop a subtle reputation on campus that may be influenced by location or architectural style This reputation likely varies over time as RCs are renovated, or have turnover in their administration In a data collection conducted independently of this one, students indicated that they thought most Yale students would prefer College A over College B, χ2 (1) = 28.58, p < 0001, and College C over College D, χ2 (1) = 5.76, p = 02 Given these local distinctions, we examined implicit attitudes of residents of these RCs Effects of RC membership and experience were tested with a (Experience: Low, High) x (RC) ANOVA, on participants’ implicit preference for their own RC Contrary to the ingroup favoritism hypothesis, preference for one’s own RC was not ubiquitous As can be seen in Figure 1, there was a strong main effect for RC in both studies (Study 1a – F [1,127] = 70.08, p < 0001, Study 1b F [1,107] = 24.56, p < 0001), reflecting large differences in the extent to which residents of each RC preferred their group Planned comparisons revealed that College A residents implicitly preferred their RC more than College B residents, t (129) = 8.51, p < 0001, d = 1.50 In Study 1b, College C residents implicitly preferred their RC more than College D residents, t (109) = 5.75, p < 0001, d = 1.10 Residents of high-status RCs completed more items when their own RC was paired with good (College A M = 26.4; College C M = 24.7) than when it was paired with bad (College A M = 18.0; College C M = 18.7) This difference reflected strong ingroup preference for high-status RCs: College A, t(65) = 11.04, p < 0001, d = 1.4, and College C, t(56) = 9.57, p < 0001, d = 1.3 Among lower-status RCs, ingroup preference was absent or diminished College B residents completed slightly more items in the College B+bad block (M = 23.0) than the College B+good block (M = 22.6), reflecting slight outgroup Implicit group evaluation 10 preference, t(64) = -0.56, ns, d = -0.1 College D residents completed more items in the College D+good block (M = 23.8) than the College D+bad block (M = 22.5), reflecting small but significant ingroup preference, t(54) = 2.52, p = 01, d = 0.3 The stark differences in RC preference are particularly striking when compared to the robust preference for Yale Despite students’ positive self-reported attitudes, RCs differed dramatically in the degree to which their residents implicitly preferred them Furthermore, experience level did not affect ingroup preference Group membership, rather than experience, appears to determine implicit ingroup attitude As in the university data, there were no effects of direct experience or interaction between RC and experience level, Fs < 1, ns Finally, students in both high- and low-status RCs showed strong implicit identification with their RC: participants completed approximately 23.6 items when their own RC was paired with Self, compared to approximately 18.2 items when it was paired with Other, reflecting strong overall identification with the RCs, t (224) = 17.08, d = 1.14 By grouping Colleges A and C (high-status) and Colleges B and D (low-status), we compared ingroup identity across status A (Status) x (Experience) ANOVA revealed no main effects of experience with one’s RC (F < 1, ns) or status of one’s RC (F [1, 222] = 1.45, ns), but did reveal an interaction between experience and status, F (1, 222) = 7.65, p = 01 Planned comparisons indicated that this interaction was driven by upper-class students in low-status RCs showing higher implicit identity with their RC than students in high-status RCs, t (138) = 2.72, p =.01 First-year students’ implicit identity did not differ as a function of RC status, t (84) = -1.38, ns While group membership does not appear inevitably to lead to ingroup liking, it does appear to create an identity with the group Moreover, rather than disidentifying from their groups over time, students in low-status RCs appeared to identify with it more This finding is notable because it suggests that strong group identity persists even when the attitude toward the group is not strongly positive These data demonstrate that the evaluative hierarchy among RCs within the university was reflected by members of both high-status and low-status RCs Importantly, students did not have to belong to their RC for years, or even weeks, for this hierarchy to be internalized – firstyears during the first week of school showed the same pattern of results as their upper-class collegemates within each RC This congruency between first-years and upper-class students is striking given that it occurs whether one’s own college is preferred or not That is, members of high-status RCs showed strong ingroup preference immediately; members of lower-status RCs showed outgroup preference (or decreased ingroup preference) immediately In contrast, the explicit data (Figure 2) suggest that participants were not consciously aware of, or were not willing to report, disparities between RCs Despite the stark differences in implicit RC attitude, students from all RCs reported strong liking for their own RC Students in College A (M = 5.6, SD = 1.3) and College B (M = 5.0, SD = 1.4), reported strong liking for their RC on a 7-point scale, although this was moderately stronger for students in College A (the highstatus RC) than College B (the low-status RC), F (1,127) = 6.86, p = 01, d = 42 Self-reported liking was also unaffected by experience level, F (1,127) = 2.28, ns, and the interaction between RC and experience, F < 1, ns In Study 1b, self-reported liking was equally strong for members of College C (the high-status RC; M = 5.2, SD = 1.6), and College D (the low-status RC; M = Implicit group evaluation 11 5.2, SD = 1.5) RC, experience, and their interaction did not affect self-reported liking, Fs < 1, ns In the current studies, even an arbitrary assignment to a beautiful brick residential created an inequity, reflected in members’ differential implicit evaluation of their groups Moreover, students internalized evaluative hierarchies even without extensive direct experience with the RC, at the implicit, but not explicit, level Conclusions Not surprisingly, students at two high-status universities preferred their school to its main rival In addition to this finding of ingroup preference, the residential college data also showed how subtle differences in reputation might overpower the typically strong tendency toward ingroup favoritism Research on intergroup bias has shown that removal of entrenched attitudes that come from living in a culture over time is challenging The current studies demonstrate evaluative hierarchies’ influence even without long-term immersion in a culture and clearly defined group differences The well-known tendency to like one’s own groups did not overwhelm the evaluative hierarchy among the residential colleges As suggested by social dominance theorists (Sidanius & Pratto, 1993; 1999), even a seemingly benign division created a hierarchy, and highand low-status group members reflected this hierarchy While system-justifying tendencies have been demonstrated among groups that differ in material resources (e.g., Jost & Banaji, 1994; Rudman et al., 2002), these data suggest that system justification may reflect a more general process that does not rely on material differences or widely known consensual stereotypes between groups Importantly, students in lower-status residential colleges showed strong implicit identification with their groups, although they did not exhibit strong implicit ingroup favoritism These results are consistent with earlier observations that members of low-status groups, such as Black-Americans, form strong ties between themselves and the group, but nevertheless reflect culturally dominant group evaluations (Rossier, Banaji & Greenwald, 1998) College experiences of new friendships, broken romances, bad food, academic tribulations and triumphs did not appear to affect implicit liking for Yale or preferences for residential colleges – first-years liked Yale as much as their upper-class peers, and within each residential college, showed similar implicit attitudes toward their group Implicit attitudes seemed to form quickly, and also to be relatively stable over students’ experience These data are particularly important given theories that suggest implicit attitudes require extensive direct experience and are slow to form (e.g., Fazio et al., 1986; Smith & DeCoster, 2000) In contrast, they suggest that implicit attitudes can form quickly and in the absence of any direct experience with the attitude object (e.g., Bargh et al., 1992) Moreover, direct experience subsequent to attitude formation may, under some circumstances, little to change the initial evaluation: positive implicit attitudes persist as liking, and negative implicit evaluations persist as disliking Arbitrary divisions created a hierarchy that was quickly internalized – and maintained - on both sides of the status divide Similar partitions are often created, and may have similar (albeit unintended) effects When teachers divide classrooms, psychologists separate departments into ‘areas,’ or other apparently harmless divisions are made, the consequences may not be trivial Some groups Implicit group evaluation 12 acquire high status, others become associated with low status, and these differences endure over time Implicit group evaluation 13 References Aberson, C L., Healy, M & Romero, V (2000) Ingroup bias and self-esteem: A metaanalysis Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 157-173 Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C I., & Monteith, M J (2001) Implicit associations as the seeds of intergroup bias: How easily they take root? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 789-799 Bargh, J A., Chaiken, S., Govender, R., & Pratto, F (1992) The generality of the automatic attitude activation effect Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 62, 893-912 Bargh, J A., Chaiken, S., Raymond, P., & Hymes, C (1996) The automatic evaluation effect: Unconditional automatic attitude activation with a pronunciation task Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 32, 104-128 Bettencourt, A., Charlton, K., Dorr, N., & Hume, D L (2001) Status differences and ingroup bias: A meta-analytic examination of the effects of status stability, status legitimacy, and group permeability Psychological Bulletin, 127, 520-542 Cadinu, M R., & Rothbart, M (1996) Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 661-677 Clark, K B., & Clark, M P (1947) Racial identification and preference in Negro children In T M Newcomb & E L Hartley (Eds.), Reading in social psychology (pp 551-560) New York: Holt, Rinehart & Winston Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C (1998) Social Stigma In Gilbert, D., Fiske, S T., & Lindzey, G (Eds.), The Handbook of Social Psychology (4th ed., Vol 2, pp 504-553) New York: McGraw Hill Duckworth, K L., Bargh, J A., Garcia, M., & Chaiken, S (2002) The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli Psychological Science, 13, 513-519 Fazio, R H (1993) Variability in the likelihood of automatic attitude activation: Data reanalysis and commentary on Bargh, Chaiken, Govender, and Pratto (1992) Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 753-758 Fazio, R H., Sanbonmatsu, D M., Powell, M C., & Kardes, F R (1986) On the automatic activation of attitudes Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229-238 Gaertner, S L., Mann, J., Murrell, A., & Dovidio, J F (1989) Reducing intergroup bias: The benefits of recategorization Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 239-249 Greenwald, A G., & Banaji, M R (1995) Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, selfesteem, and stereotypes Psychological Review, 102, 4-27 Implicit group evaluation 14 Greenwald, A G., McGhee, D E., & Schwartz, J L (1998) Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480 Greenwald, A G., Banaji, M R., Rudman, L A., Farnham, S D., Nosek, B A., & Mellot, D S (2002) A unified theory of implicit attitudes, beliefs, self-esteem and self-concept Psychological Review, 109(1), 3-25 Hewstone, M., & Ward, C (1985) Ethnocentrism and causal attribution in Southeast Asia Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 48, 614-623 Hummert, M L., Garstka, T A., O'Brien, L T., Greenwald, A G., & Mellott, D S (2002) Using the implicit association test to measure age differences in implicit social cognitions Psychology and Aging, 17, 482-495 Jost, J T., & Banaji, M R (1994) The role of stereotyping in system-justification and the production of false consciousness British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 1-27 Jost, J T., & Burgess, D (2000) Attitudinal ambivalence and the conflict between group and system justification motives in low status groups Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 293-305 Jost, J T., Pelham, B W., & Carvallo, M R (2002) Non-conscious forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences for higher status groups Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38, 586-602 Lowery, B S., Hardin, C D., & Sinclair, S (2001) Social influence effects on automatic racial prejudice Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 842-855 Mlicki, P P., & Ellemers, N (1996) Being different or being better? National stereotypes and identifications of Polish and Dutch students European Journal of Social Psychology, 26, 97-114 Mullen, B., Brown, R., & Smith, C (1992) Ingroup bias as a function of salience, relevance, and status: An integration European Journal of Social Psychology, 22, 103-122 Nosek, B A., Banaji, M., & Greenwald, A G (2002) Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 6, 101-115 Nosek, B A., & Lane, K A (1999) [Analyzing paper-pencil IAT data] Unpublished raw data Otten, S., & Wentura, D (1999) About the impact of automaticity in the minimal Group Paradigm: Evidence from affective priming tasks European Journal of Social Psychology, 29, 1049-1071 Implicit group evaluation 15 Rossier, M., Banaji, M R & Greenwald, A G (1998) Implicit and explicit self-esteem and group membership Paper presented at the meeting of the Midwestern Psychological Association, Chicago, IL Rudman, L A F., Joshua; Fairchild, Kimberly (2002) Minority members' implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of group status Social Cognition, 20, 294-320 Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F (1993) The inevitability of oppression and the dynamics of social dominance In P M., Sniderman, P E Tetlock, & E G Carmines (Eds.), Prejudice, politics, and the American dilemma (pp 173-211) Stanford, CA: Stanford University Press Sidanius, J., & Pratto, F (1999) Social dominance: An intergroup theory of social hierarchy and oppression New York: Cambridge University Press Smith, E R., & DeCoster, J (2000) Dual-process models in social and cognitive psychology: Conceptual integration and links to underlying memory systems Personality and Social Psychology Review, 4, 108-131 Tajfel, H., Turner, J C (1986) The social identity theory of intergroup behavior In S Worschel & W G Austin (Eds.), The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (pp - 24) Chicago: Nelson Hall Tajfel, H., Billig, M., Bundy, R., & Flament, C (1971) Social categorization and intergroup behaviour European Journal of Social Psychology, 1, 149-178 Yale University Residential Life – Colleges Retrieved May 13, 2003, from http://www.yale.edu/admit/freshmen/residential_life/index.html Implicit group evaluation 16 Author’s Note Kristin A Lane, Jason P Mitchell, and Mahzarin R Banaji, Department of Psychology, Harvard University This research was supported by National Science Foundation predoctoral fellowships to Kristin A Lane and Jason P Mitchell, a National Research Service Award predoctoral fellowship to Jason P Mitchell, and by grants from the National Institute of Mental Health (MH57672) and from the National Science Foundation (SBR-9422241 and SBR-9709924) to Mahzarin R Banaji Portions of this research were presented at the 2001 annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in San Antonio, TX We thank Geoffrey Cohen, Richard Hackman, Peter Salovey, and the Implicit Social Cognition lab at Harvard University for comments on a previous draft, and Cheryl Conner and Hyura Choi for help with data collection Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Kristin Lane or Mahzarin Banaji, Department of Psychology, Harvard University, William James Hall, 33 Kirkland Street, Cambridge, MA 02138 Electronic mail may be sent to lane@wjh.harvard.edu or banaji@wjh.harvard.edu Implicit group evaluation 17 Footnotes A legacy is the family member of a student or alumnus Because of the potential for knowledge of group differences to become self-fulfilling, and the likelihood that Yale affiliates may learn of the current findings, we will not name the residential colleges, but will refer to them as Colleges A and B (Study 1a) and C and D (Study 1b) Under early decision at the time of this study, students could apply to Yale in November rather than December If accepted, they were required to attend Yale In Study 1a, first-years and upper-class students did not differ, t (141) = 10, ns, d = 01 In Study 1b, first-years reported slightly stronger liking for Yale than upper-class students, t (120) = 2.66, p < 01, d = 24 Implicit group evaluation 18 Table Summary of Implicit Categories and Stimuli Flower daffodil, daisy, tulip Insect gnat, mosquito, roach Harvard Cambridge, Crimson, Harvard, Yale Blue, Bulldog, Yale Good (Set A) awesome, excellent, happy Bad (Set A) awful, cancer, horrible Good (Set B) great, terrific, wonderful Bad (Set B) evil, terrible, murder (Study 1a) bomb (Study 1b) Self me, my, mine Other theirs, them, they RCs RC names and well-known abbreviations Implicit group evaluation 19 Figure Captions Figure Implicit preference for residential college, by RC affiliation and experience level Figure Explicit liking for residential college, by RC affiliation and experience level Implicit group evaluation 20 Difference in items completed between RC+good and RC+bad First-Years Upper-Class 10 -2 College A Study 1a College B College C College D Study 1b Implicit group evaluation 21 First Years Upper Class Self-reported attitude toward RC College A Study 1a College B College C College D Study 1b ... competent than men in domains such as math, African-Americans endorse the notion that they are more hostile and less intelligent than other groups, and the poor indicate that they are not as hardworking... students’ implicit identity did not differ as a function of RC status, t (84) = -1.38, ns While group membership does not appear inevitably to lead to ingroup liking, it does appear to create an identity... preference may at first seem paradoxical Nevertheless, beginning with Clark and Clark’s (1947) observations that Black children preferred White dolls over Black dolls, social psychologists have