Summarizing a Published Work

Summarizing a published work

Respond to each of following elements:

Step 1: Summarizing a source

Write a brief summary of the argument presented in the article above. Remember that summaries do not go into great detail. Your summary should have enough information for the reader to understand the focus (thesis) of the article and how the author supports the thesis. Your summary should contain all the following elements:

• Introduce the article by its author and title
• Explain the author’s argument (what does the author claim and what are the supporting reasons)
• What the does article tell us about individuality or identity?
• Use in-text citations to identify when you are using the author’s ideas.
• Quote a passage that struck you as interesting or enlightening and explain why.

  Introduce the quotation carefully with a signal phrase, such as, “Lun, Sinclair, & Cogburn explain that…”, and
  Include an in-text citation including a page number to cite your quotation.

Step 2: Examining Different Viewpoints

One of the most interesting things about stereotypes is how they can affect the actions of those who have been stereotyped. Think of a stereotype you’re familiar with.

• Which came first, the label or the trait?
• How can the things that other people say about us affect who we become?

Step 3: Create a References Page

Create a references page:

• Type the word “References”
• Enter a line break
• Provide the full citation (in APA format) for your selected text.

Cultural Stereotypes and the Self: A Closer Examination of

Implicit Self-Stereotyping

Janetta Lun

University of Virginia

Stacey Sinclair

Princeton University

Courtney Cogburn

University of Michigan

Recent research and theory on implicit self-stereotyping suggests that individuals
nonconsciously incorporate stereotypes about their social groups into the self-concept;
however, evidence as to whether this holds true for negative stereotypes remains limited.
Using a subliminal priming measure, the current research found that women (Experi-
ment 1) and White Americans (Experiment 2) implicitly associated the self with in-group
stereotypic traits but not out-group stereotypic traits. Of importance, both groups
implicitly self-stereotyped on negative in-group traits to a similar extent as they did
on positive in-group traits. Moreover, exploratory analysis showed that the degree to
which White Americans associated positive, but not negative, in-group stereotypes with
the self was related to higher self-esteem. Implications of implicit self-stereotyping on
self-esteem and stereotype-consistent behavior are discussed.

Cultural stereotypes are widely known beliefs
(Devine, 1989; Devine & Elliot, 1995; Katz & Braly,
1933) that broadly influence how individuals are
evaluated and treated (Fiske, 1998; Hamilton, Sherman,
& Ruvolo, 1990; Hilton & von Hippel, 1996; Macrae &
Bodenhausen, 2000). Because of the pervasiveness of
these beliefs, targets of stereotypes live in a world where
they are frequently assumed to have stereotypic traits or
behave in a stereotype-consistent manner (Bargh &
Pietromonaco, 1982; Darley & Gross, 1983; Devine,
1989; Fiske, Lin, & Neuberg, 1999; Srull & Wyer,
1979). Moreover, people who hold stereotypic expecta-
tions can elicit behavior from targets that confirms these
expectancies (e.g., Olivier & Snyder, 2003; Word,
Zanna, & Cooper, 1974).

Influential theory and research suggests that
continuous exposure to, being evaluated in terms of,
and occasionally behaving in a manner consistent with
stereotypes may lead targets to incorporate stereotypic
beliefs about their social groups into their own self-
concept (Allport, 1954=1979; Cooley, 1902; Mead,
1934; Tice & Wallace, 2003), even those aspects of the
self-concept that are less available for conscious intro-
spection (i.e., implicit; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; see
Devos & Banaji, 2003, for a review). We refer to the
nonconscious incorporation of in-group stereotypes into
the self-concept as implicit self-stereotyping.

The unified theory of implicit cognition, a prominent
theoretical explanation of implicit self-stereotyping, sug-
gests that members of a given social group, on average,
ought to implicitly associate stereotypes of their group
with the self (Greenwald et al., 2002). According to this
perspective, individuals will implicitly associate in-group
stereotypes with the self to the extent that they also
implicitly associate the self with the group identity and

Correspondence should be sent to Janetta Lun, 102 Gilmer Hall,

P.O. Box 400400, Charlottesville, VA 22904–4400. E-mail: jlun@

virginia.edu

BASIC AND APPLIED SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY, 31:117–127, 2009

Copyright # Taylor & Francis Group, LLC

ISSN: 0197-3533 print=1532-4834 online

DOI: 10.1080/01973530902880340

the group with in-group stereotypes. Given that people
tend to associate the self with the in-group more so than
with out-groups (Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002b;
see Greenwald et al., 2002, for a review) and are as likely
to hold implicit stereotypes of in-groups as out-groups
(Nosek, Banaji, & Greenwald, 2002a, 2002b), it follows
that members of a social group should, on average,
implicitly associate in-group stereotypes with the self
more so than out-group stereotypes (Greenwald &
Farnham, 2000; Smith & Henry, 1996). Consistent with
this logic, research has shown that women as a group are
more likely to associate positive feminine traits (e.g.,
gentle, warm) with their self-concepts than men do
(Farnham & Greenwald, 2000). Based on the stereotype
that men are more powerful and women are weaker,
Rudman, Greenwald, and McGhee (2001) also showed
that men associate attributes related to power, relative
to those related to being weak, with their
self-concepts to a greater extent than women do. This
evidence suggests that people do implicitly associate
in-group stereotypes with the self.

Although extant research has demonstrated implicit
self-stereotyping, the limits of this phenomenon remain
unexamined. Do people, on average, implicitly associate
positive and negative in-group stereotypes with the self
to an equal degree? Or, do people selectively associate
one type of in-group stereotype with the self more than
another? These questions call for empirical attention
because different theoretical perspectives suggest differ-
ent answers.

On one hand, some theory and research suggests that
people would implicitly self-stereotype with respect to
positive but not negative in-group stereotypic traits.
According to social identity theory, people tend to seek
positive self-views through their social group member-
ships (Tajfel & Turner, 1986). Although this theory does
not explicitly take a stand with respect to unconscious
thought processes, it is not unreasonable to assume that
the motivation to sustain positive self-views through
group memberships operates automatically (Greenwald
et al., 2002). In fact, in-group favoritism, the tendency
for people to evaluate their in-group more favorably
than out-groups to enhance positive self-esteem, has
been shown to occur automatically (see Dasgupta,
2004, for a review). For example, people have more
automatic positive evaluations toward in-group designa-
ting pronouns (e.g., us, we) than outgroup designating
pronouns (e.g., they, them; Perdue, Dovidio, Gurtman,
& Tyler, 1990). Research has also demonstrated that
implicit positive evaluation toward the in-group among
high-status group members is associated with higher
implicit self-esteem (Jost, Pelham, & Carvallo, 2002).

The unified theory of implicit cognition can also be
construed as predicting self-stereotyping on positive but
not negative in-group traits. This perspective assumes

that the self is characterized by positive traits, that is,
the core self tends to be associated with more positive
traits than negative traits (Greenwald et al., 2002;
Rudman et al., 2001). As such, people should be more
apt to associate positive in-group stereotypic traits with
the self than negative in-group stereotypic traits. How-
ever, research generated by this perspective has yet to
test this prediction in a way that unconfounds stereotype
content and valence or that directly compares implicit
self-stereotyping on positive versus negative stereotypes.

On the other hand, several lines of thinking suggest
that individuals should associate both negative and posi-
tive stereotypic attributes with the self (e.g., Allport,
1954=1979; Cooley, 1902; Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004;
Mead, 1934; Rudman, 2004). First, this outcome is
implied by the notion that self-stereotyping results from
the knowledge of, and continuous exposure to, in-group
stereotypes. After all, most widely recognized stereo-
types have both negative and positive aspects (Fiske,
Cuddy, Glick, & Xu, 2002), and members of stereotyped
groups are well aware of both the positive and negative
beliefs about their groups (Crocker, Major, & Steele,
1998; Devine & Elliot, 1995). Moreover, one could
argue that implicit measures of the self-concept are more
likely than explicit measures to reveal associations
between negative stereotypes and the self because parti-
cipants are less likely to be aware that their self-views
are being assessed and, even if they are aware, implicit
measures are less subject to strategic control (cf.
Dasgupta, McGhee, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2000;
Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998).

Self-categorization theory also suggests that people
should associate both positive and negative in-group
traits to the self (e.g. Simon, Glassner-Bayerl, &
Stratenwerth, 1991; Simon & Hamilton, 1994; Smith,
Coats, & Walling, 1999; Smith & Henry, 1996; Turner,
Hogg, Oakes, Reicher, & Wetherell, 1987). In support
of this perspective, for example, Smith and Henry found
that individuals’ self-concepts are more closely associa-
ted with both the positive and negative traits they
think characterize the social group that they belong to.
Although they found the same pattern of results with
consensual stereotypes of the group, it was unclear whe-
ther these stereotypes included both positive and negative
traits. Therefore, a stronger case can be made by research
that directly compares positive and negative culturally
shared stereotypes, as we do in the current research.

Finally, system justification theory contends that
positive and negative stereotypes serve to justify the
advantages and disadvantages that people are subject
to (Jost, 2001; Jost & Banaji, 1994). Over time, justi-
fication process may lead to incorporation of these
stereotypes into the self-concept (Dunham, Baron, &
Banaji, 2006). Although studies of system justification
do not directly assess such self-stereotyping, indirect

118 LUN, SINCLAIR, COGBURN

support for this contention comes from research showing
that members of low-status groups tend to favor the
out-group over their own group, whereas members of
high-status groups show in-group favoritism (Jost &
Burgess, 2000; Mullen, Brown, & Smith, 1992; Rudman,
Feinberg, & Fairchild, 2002). Such out-group favoritism
is particularly evident when assessed using implicit mea-
sures (Jost et al., 2004). As targets use stereotypes to jus-
tify their in-group status, they may subtly reinforce the
association between these stereotypes and the in-group
or the self. More important, stereotypes and beliefs do
not have to be of a particular valence to justify the status
of a group. For example, the stereotype that poor people
are happier and more honest than rich people serves to
justify the inferior status of the poor (Kay & Jost, 2003).
Thus, this theory and related evidence concurs that peo-
ple should associate both positive and negative in-group
stereotypes with the self—particularly on an implicit
measure.

Our research speaks to the opposing predictions by
examining implicit self-stereotyping with people from
two social groups that are known to be associated with
positive and negative stereotypes: women and White
Americans. We first examined implicit self-stereotyping
among women (Experiment 1). Previous research has
shown that women are more likely to associate feminine
traits with the self than masculine traits (Greenwald &
Farnham, 2000), but the self-stereotyping effect was
confounded with the positive nature of feminine traits
and the study did not specifically examine trait valence.
In our study, we predict that women will implicitly
associate positive female stereotypes with the self, pro-
viding evidence convergent with previous research. The
critical test then is whether women will implicitly incor-
porate negative female stereotypic traits into the
self-concept. As previously mentioned, there are theore-
tical reasons to expect or to not expect they would do so.

Then we extended our examination to White Ameri-
cans and tested whether members of this group engaged
in implicit self-stereotyping (Experiment 2). Although
members of this group are less likely to be thought of
as targets of stereotypes, they are not exceptions to the
socialization of cultural stereotypes (Rudman, 2004).
Thus, White Americans may be as likely as other social
groups to implicitly associate in-group stereotypes with
the self, thus providing strong evidence of implicit
self-stereotyping. For exploratory purposes, we also
examined whether implicit self-stereotyping among
White Americans is related to their self-esteem.

EXPERIMENT 1

This experiment examined whether women implicitly
associated positive and negative feminine traits with

the self. Unlike past research, we measured implicit
self-stereotyping with a sequential subliminal priming
task as opposed to the Implicit Association Test (IAT;
Greenwald et al., 1998) to capture the association
between the self and different stereotypic traits. There
are two advantages to using a priming task instead of
the IAT for the purpose of this research. First, it
addresses the limitation of relative difference inherent
in the IAT (Nosek & Banaji, 2001). The gender
self-stereotyping IAT shows, for example, how much
women are likely to associate feminine traits with the
self as compared to masculine traits. Findings using this
measure are not able to discern whether women have a
stronger association between feminine traits and the self
or a weaker association between masculine traits and
the self. Second, when using a subliminal priming
paradigm, people will be completely unaware of the
relevance of stereotypes to this task, thereby minimizing
positive self-presentation or reactance effects.

Method

Participants

Thirty-eight female undergraduates participated in
this experiment to partially fulfill a course requirement.
They all identified themselves as White.

Procedure

Participants were recruited to a study ostensibly
about word identification. Upon arriving at the labora-
tory, one of the two female White experimenters gave
participants instructions for a computerized lexical deci-
sion task that followed the procedure of the subliminal
priming task in Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park (1997).
They were told the following: Their goal was to distin-
guish, as quickly as they could, whether a series of letter
strings presented on the computer were words or non-
words. To help them respond quickly, they were to focus
on a black dot at the center of the screen throughout the
task, where the letter strings would appear, and press the
F key marked ‘‘W’’ when they thought the presented let-
ter string was a word but should press the J key marked
‘‘N’’ when they thought the letter string was a nonword.
To ensure that participants understood the instructions,
the experimenter stayed with them through the practice
trials and answered any questions they had. Then parti-
cipants were left alone to complete the experimental
trials. After the lexical decision task, the experimenter
returned with a self-evaluation questionnaire for partici-
pants to complete. Although this was not the focus of
the study, we used this questionnaire to measure the
degree to which participants consciously ascribed stereo-
typic traits to the self. Finally, participants were probed
for suspicion and whether they detected any of the prime

IMPLICIT SELF-STEREOTYPING 119

words in the lexical decision task. After that, they were
debriefed and thanked.

Materials

Lexical decision task. The computer task was used
to assess the degree to which participants implicitly
associated female and male stereotypes with the self.
In a series of trials, self-relevant or neutral words were
subliminally presented prior to presentations of a female
stereotypic word, male stereotypic word, or a nonword
that participants judged as a word or nonword. The
dependent measure was participant’s response latencies
when making these lexical judgments (e.g., Wittenbrink
et al., 1997).

The words in this task were positive and negative
female and male stereotypes. The positive female stereo-
types were caring, compassionate, faithful, and sensitive,
and the negative female stereotypes were complaining,
dependent, moody, shy, and weak. The positive male
stereotypes were athletic, confident, powerful, and strong,
and the negative male stereotypes were aggressive, arro-
gant, insensitive, selfish, and stubborn. To show that
these traits were valid gender stereotypes in the specific
population examined, a separate group of 36 undergrad-
uate students rated the extent to which each of these
traits was perceived to be mostly associated with women
versus men on a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (mostly
associated with women) to 7 (mostly associated with men).
All of the female stereotypic traits were rated signifi-
cantly below the midpoint (4) and all of the male stereo-
typic traits were rated above the midpoint (all ps < .05). Another group of 32 students rated the extent to which each of these traits was perceived as negative versus positive on a 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive) Likert-type scale. As expected, all of the positive traits were rated significantly above the neutral point, whereas all of the negative traits were rated significantly below the neutral point (all ps < .05). Twenty-two participants made lexical judgments on the 18 stereotypic words and 10 nonwords twice in randomized order for a total of 56 trials. Five participants completed this task making judgments on these words and nonwords only once for a total of 28 trials. The number of trials did not affect the results when it was entered as a factor, and therefore the data were combined in the analyses.

For each trial, participants first saw a black dot, a
fixation point, in the middle of the screen that they were
told to focus on. At the same time, a string of Xs pre-
sented at one of the corners of the screen acted as a
forward mask of the prime. After 1,000 msec, a self (self,
I, me) or neutral word (a, at, the) was presented sublim-
inally for 15 msec in place of the mask. It was followed
by the same string of Xs, which acted as the backward
mask for the prime for another 1,000 msec. Immediately

after the presentation of the prime and masks, a female
stereotypic word, male stereotypic word, or nonword
appeared in place of the fixation point. Participants then
made the word or nonword judgment, and the latencies
of these judgments were recorded. If participants
responded incorrectly, the program waited for the correct
response before proceeding to the following trial. Partici-
pants first completed four practice trials including two
words (i.e., apple, pencil) and two nonwords (i.e., youey,
njoue) to become familiarized with the keys. Then they pro-
ceeded to the experimental trials. Implicit self-stereotyping
was indicated by how much the self primes, compared to
the neutral primes, facilitated individuals’ response latency
to female and male stereotypic words.

Questionnaire. After the lexical decision task, parti-
cipants completed a questionnaire that assessed their
explicit self-stereotyping on the stereotypic traits that
were presented in the lexical decision task, as well as
some filler traits. They were asked to rate the degree
to which each of these traits applied to themselves on
a 7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
much). Four composites were created to reflect the
extent to which participants thought each type of stereo-
typic traits applied to them: average selfratings on
positive female stereotypes (a ¼ .68), negative female
stereotypes (a ¼ .67), positive male stereotypes (a ¼ .70),
and negative male stereotypes (a ¼ .80).

Results

Two participants were excluded from the analyses
because they reported seeing a self-related word between
the masks. Although three participants reported seeing
flashes in the masks, they could not identify any of the
actual prime words so they were not excluded from
the following analyses. Results with or without these
three participants did not differ.

Several procedures were performed to normalize the
distribution of response latencies. First, we eliminated
outliers using criteria adapted from previous research
(Bargh & Chartrand, 2000; Fazio, 1990; Wittenbrink
et al., 1997). Latencies that were more than 3 standard
deviations above individuals’ average reaction time, lower
than 150 msec, and from errors that were later corrected
were recorded as missing values. A total of 20 latencies
were recorded as missing values, 1.6% of a total of
1,188 word trials. We then log transformed the latencies
(Fazio, 1990; Ratcliff, 1993). For ease of interpretation,
descriptive statistics are reported in milliseconds.

Implicit Self-Stereotyping

If women are subject to implicit self-stereotyping,
they should respond to female stereotypes faster after

120 LUN, SINCLAIR, COGBURN

self-relevant primes than neutral primes. In addition,
they should respond equally fast, or slower, to male
stereotypes after self-relevant primes versus neutral
primes. To test this hypothesis, the transformed laten-
cies were entered into a 2 (prime: self vs. neutral
primes) � 2 (traits: female vs. male stereotypes) � 2
(valence: positive vs. negative words) repeated measure
analysis of variance (ANOVA). In general, participants
responded faster to positive words (M ¼ 681, SD ¼ 262)
than negative words (M ¼ 715, SD ¼ 255), F(1, 35) ¼
10.25, p < .01, partial g2 ¼ .23. They also responded fas- ter to male stereotypes (M ¼ 684, SD ¼ 253) than female stereotypes (M ¼ 713, SD ¼ 266), F(1, 35) ¼ 6.27, p ¼ .02, partial g2 ¼ .15.

As hypothesized, there was also an interaction
between prime and traits, F(1, 35) ¼ 5.82, p ¼ .02, partial
g2 ¼ .14 (see Figure 1). Simple effects analysis revealed
that participants responded faster to female stereotypes
following selfprimes (M ¼ 688, SD ¼ 252) than to the
same stereotypes following neutral primes (M ¼ 739,
SD ¼ 298), t(35) ¼ 2.00, p ¼ .05, partial g2 ¼ .10. How-
ever, there was no difference in the speed with which
they responded to male stereotypes following self-primes
(M ¼ 697, SD ¼ 281) than to the same stereotypes fol-
lowing neutral primes (M ¼ 672, SD ¼ 242), t(35) < 1, p > .30. This pattern was not moderated by valence,
F(1, 35) ¼ 1.73, p ¼ .20.

Explicit Self-Stereotyping

Similar to the analysis of implicit self-stereotyping,
participants’ selfratings on stereotypic traits were sub-
mitted to a 2 (traits: female vs. male stereotypes) � 2
(valence: positive vs. negative words) repeated measure
ANOVA. Participants rated themselves higher on
female stereotypic traits (M ¼ 4.84, SD ¼ 0.56) than
male stereotypic traits (M ¼ 4.16, SD ¼ 0.73), F(1,
35) ¼ 33.75, p < .01, partial to g2 ¼ .49, and higher on

positive traits (M ¼ 5.29, SD ¼ 0.63) than negative traits
(M ¼ 3.71, SD ¼ 0.89), F(1, 35) ¼ 82.22, p < .01, partial to g2 ¼ .70. Moreover, these main effects were qualified by an interaction between traits and valence, F(1, 35) ¼ 28.12, p < .01, partial to g2 ¼ .45. Female participants rated themselves as more stereotypically feminine (M ¼ 5.95, SD ¼ 0.61) than masculine (M ¼ 4.71, SD ¼ 0.90) on positive traits, t(35) ¼ 8.07, p < .01, partial to g2 ¼ .65, but this difference was attenuated on negative traits (Mf ¼ 3.70, SD ¼ 0.94 vs. Mm ¼ 3.44, SD ¼ 1.10), t(35) ¼ 1.59, p ¼ .12.

Positive and Negative Self-Stereotyping on Implicit
Versus Explicit Measures

To directly compare the valence differences in
self-stereotyping on the implicit and explicit measure
on the same metric, we converted the degree to which
women implicitly and explicitly self-stereotyped on
positive versus negative traits to Cohen’s ds.1 For expli-
cit self-stereotyping, we first computed two difference
scores that captured the degree to which participants
explicitly self-stereotyped on positive and negative traits
(self-ratings on positive female stereotypes – self-ratings
on positive male stereotypes; self-ratings on negative
female stereotype – self-ratings on negative male stereo-
types). Then, we derived the Cohen’s d from the mean
difference and pooled standard deviation of these two
difference scores.

For implicit self-stereotyping, we took an additional
step prior to computing the two different scores of
implicit self-stereotyping on positive and negative traits
because of the task design. We first computed four
scores that captured the degree to which participants
implicitly associated positive and negative, female and
male stereotypes to the self. These scores were created
by subtracting latencies in response to a particular type
of stereotypes preceded by self primes from the latencies
to the same set of traits preceded by neutral primes.
After obtaining these four scores, we followed the same
procedure as we did with the explicit measure. Another
two difference scores were created to indicate the degree
to which participants implicitly self-stereotyped posi-
tively and negatively (e.g., implicit self-stereotyping on
positive female stereotypes – implicit self-stereotyping
on positive male stereotypes). Finally, we derived the
Cohen’s d based on the mean difference and the pooled
standard deviation of these differences. A positive value
of a d score indicated positive self-stereotyping and a
negative value suggested negative self-stereotyping.

On the explicit measure, participants’ self-ratings on
positive in-group traits, on average, were nearly 1 stan-
dard deviation above their ratings on negative in-group

FIGURE 1 Average response latencies of women to male and female

stereotypes after self versus neutral primes.

1We thank a reviewer for this suggestion.

IMPLICIT SELF-STEREOTYPING 121

traits after controlling for their self-ratings on out-group
stereotypes (d ¼ .90), and the d score was reliably
different from 0, t(35) ¼ 5.30, p < .001. However, on the implicit measure, the favor toward positive self- stereotyping virtually disappeared (d ¼ �.28). In fact, it was trending in the opposite direction indicating a small propensity to implicitly associate negative in-group traits with the self, but the d score was not reliably different from 0, t(35) ¼ 1.71, p ¼ .10. A paired sample t test further showed that women were more likely to positively self-stereotype on the explicit than implicit measure, t(35) ¼ 5.19, p < .001. These findings are consistent with the results we found previously.

Relationship between Explicit and Implicit
Self-Stereotyping

As mentioned, individual differences in the extent to
which people implicitly associated the four types of traits
(i.e., positive female and male stereotypes, negative
female and male stereotypes) with the self-concept were
indicated by the difference in latencies for a given type of
stereotypic traits preceded by self primes and latencies
for the same type of traits preceded by neutral primes.
Thus, higher values indicated greater implicit association
between that type of trait and the self. These scores were
then correlated with explicit self-ratings on the same
traits. No consistent relationship was found between
implicit and explicit measures of self-stereotyping with
respect to a given type of trait. Correlations coefficients
for female positive, female negative, male positive and
male negative stereotypic traits were r(36) ¼ �.27, .29,
.05, and .26 respectively, all ps > .09.

Discussion

Consistent with previous research, Experiment 1
demonstrated that women implicitly associated female
stereotypes with the self more strongly than male stereo-
types. Of importance, this occurred for both positive
and negative in-group stereotypic traits. In contrast,
women explicitly self-stereotyped more so on positive
than negative traits. Although we found that women
self-stereotyped implicitly and explicitly, there was no
consistent relationship between implicit and explicit
self-stereotyping.

EXPERIMENT 2

In Experiment 2, we examined implicit self-stereotyping
among White Americans. Because White Americans are
a group that is not commonly identified as the target of
stereotypes in part because of their majority status rela-
tive to other ethnic groups, simply determining whether
they implicitly self-stereotype with respect to this social

identity is illuminating. More important, should they
implicitly self-stereotype, it is interesting to examine whe-
ther White Americans implicitly self-stereotype with
negative in-group stereotypic traits to the same extent as
positive in-group stereotypic traits. Finally, we explored
whether the degree to which White Americans associated
these traits with the self was related to self-esteem in addi-
tion to the explicit self-stereotyping measure. Because we
did not find a consistent correspondence between implicit
and explicit self-stereotyping in Experiment 1, we want to
explore whether implicit self-stereotyping will manifest in
other explicit judgments about the self such as one’s
global or state self-esteem.

Method
Participants

Twenty-eight White undergraduate students (10
female and 18 male) participated in this experiment to
partially fulfill a course requirement.

Materials and Procedure

The procedure was the same as in Experiment 1 with
one exception. The stereotype-relevant words partici-
pants saw in the lexical decision task and the question-
naire were stereotypic traits associated with African
Americans and White Americans. The African American
positive stereotypes used in this study were religious,
funny, strong, and athletic, and negative stereotypes of
this group were dangerous, violent, loud, uneducated,
and poor. The White positive stereotypes were success-
ful, rich, wealthy, educated, and preppy, and negative
stereotypes of this group were materialistic, stuck-up,
racist, and snobby. Thirty-six undergraduate students
rated the extent to which each of these traits was
perceived by most people as associated with African
Americans versus Whites on a 7-point Likert-type scale
from 1 (mostly associated with African Americans) to 7
(mostly associated with Whites). Average ratings were
all significantly different from the midpoint (4) in the
expected direction (all ps < .05). Another group of 32 students rated the extent to which each of these traits was perceived as negative versus positive on a 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive) Likert-type scale. All of the positive traits, except for preppy, were rated signifi- cantly above the neutral point (4), whereas all of the negative traits were rated significantly below the mid- point (all ps < .01). Preppy was categorized as a positive trait in the analyses reported below to allow a conserva- tive test of negative implicit self-stereotyping.2 The 18

2
The reported pattern data was the same regardless of whether the

trait preppy was coded as a positive trait, coded as a negative trait, or

excluded.

122 LUN, SINCLAIR, COGBURN

stereotypic words and ten nonwords were presented
once for half of the participants for a total of 28 trials
and twice for the other half of the participants for a total
of 56 trials. The number of trials did not affect the
results when entered as a factor, and therefore the data
were combined in the analyses.

After the computer task, participants explicitly rated
how much the stereotypic traits they saw in the computer
task, as well as filler items, described them on a
7-point Likert-type scale from 1 (not at all) to 7 (very
much). Self-ratings on the stereotypic traits were averaged
to produce four scores: positive and negative stereotypes
of Whites (a ¼ .68 and a ¼ .72, respectively), and positive
and negative stereotypes of African Americans (a ¼ .54
and a ¼ .47, respectively). Finally, participants also com-
pleted a global self-esteem scale (Rosenberg, 1965) and a
state self-esteem scale (Heatherton & Polivy, 1991; Social
and Performance subscales) to examine whether implicit
self-stereotyping related to self-relevant judgments. Both
scales were reverse-scored and averaged across items,
respectively, with higher numbers indicating greater
global and state self-esteem.

Results and Discussion

The procedures for eliminating outliers and transforming
the latency data to normalize the distribution were the
same as in Experiment 1. Eighteen missing values were
recorded, 2.2% of a total of 810 word trials. Four partici-
pants reported seeing flashes in the masks, but they were
unable to identify any of the actual primes so they were
not excluded from the following analyses. Results with
or without these 4 participants did not differ.

Implicit Self-Stereotyping

If White Americans are subject to implicit self-
stereotyping, they should respond to White stereotypes
faster after self-relevant primes than neutral primes. In
addition, they should respond equally fast, or slower,
to African American stereotypes after self-relevant
primes versus neutral primes. As in Experiment 1, to
examine this prediction the transformed latencies were
entered into a 2 (prime: self vs. neutral primes) � 2
(traits: African American vs. White American stereo-
types) � 2 (valence: positive vs. negative words) repeated
measure ANOVA. On average, participants responded
faster to stereotypes of African Americans (M ¼ 677,
SD ¼ 208) than stereotypes of White Americans
(M ¼ 736, SD ¼ 233), F(1, 27) ¼ 12.93, p < .01, partial g2 ¼ .32. In addition, they responded faster to positive words (M ¼ 684, SD ¼ 198) than negative words (M ¼ 730, SD ¼ 239), F(1, 27) ¼ 15.68, p < .01, partial g2 ¼ .37. Each of these effects was moderated by prime.

As predicted, and consistent with Experiment 1, there
was an interaction between prime and traits, F(1, 27) ¼

7.14, p ¼ .01, partial g2 ¼ .21 (see Figure 2). Simple effect
analyses revealed that White participants responded
faster to in-group stereotypes following self primes
(M ¼ 705, SD ¼ 210) than to the same stereotypes
following neutral primes (M ¼ 768, SD ¼ 276), t(27) ¼
2.25, p ¼ .03, partial g2 ¼ .16. They also responded slower
to African American stereotypes following self primes
(M ¼ 695, SD ¼ 243) than to the same stereotypes follow-
ing neutral primes (M ¼ 659, SD ¼ 190), though the differ-
ence was only marginally reliable, t(27)¼ 1.91, p ¼ .07,
partial g2 ¼ .12. This pattern was not moderated by
valence, F(1, 27) < 1. In sum, White Americans showed implicit self-stereotyping on positive and negative in-group stereotypic traits, similar to the findings with women, and these associations were not affected by valence of the traits.

There was also an interaction between prime and
valence, showing that participants were more likely to
implicitly associate positive traits with their self-
concepts than negative traits, F(1, 27) ¼ 8.42, p ¼ .01,
partial g2 ¼ .24. Simple effect analyses showed that
participants responded faster to positive traits following
self primes (M ¼ 661, SD ¼ 201) than to the same traits
following neutral primes (M ¼ 706, SD ¼ 216),
t(27) ¼ 2.27, p ¼ .03, partial g2 ¼ .17. They also
responded slower to negative traits following self primes
(M ¼ 739, SD ¼ 248) than to the same negative traits
following neutral primes (M ¼ 721, SD ¼ 245), t(27) ¼
1.80, p ¼ .08, partial g2 ¼ .11.

Explicit self-stereotyping

As in Experiment 1, explicit self-ratings on stereoty-
pic traits were submitted to a 2 (traits: African American
vs. White American stereotypes) � 2 (valence: positive
vs. negative words) repeated measure ANOVA. In gen-
eral, participants rated themselves significantly higher
on positive traits (M ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 0.69) than negative

FIGURE 2 Average response latencies of White Americans to White

and Black stereotypes after self versus neutral primes.

IMPLICIT SELF-STEREOTYPING 123

traits (M ¼ 2.39, SD ¼ 0.64), F(1, 27) ¼ 218.80, p < .01, partial g2 ¼ .89. There was also a marginal interaction between these factors, F(1, 27) ¼ 2.87, p ¼ .10, partial g2 ¼ .10. Participants rated themselves equally high on positive stereotypes of White Americans (M ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 0.91) and positive stereotypes of African Ameri- cans (M ¼ 4.68, SD ¼ 0.88), t(27) < 1. However, they rated themselves somewhat lower on negative stereo- types of African Americans (M ¼ 2.26, SD ¼ 0.71) than negative stereotypes of White Americans (M ¼ 2.53, SD ¼ 0.93) but the difference was not reliable, t(27) ¼ 1.36, p ¼ .19. These results suggest that White Americans are not significantly more likely to explicitly endorse positive in-group stereotypic traits than positive out-group stereotypic traits as characteristic of the self.

Positive and Negative Self-Stereotyping on
Implicit Versus Explicit Measures

As in Experiment 1, we compared positive versus nega-
tive self-stereotyping on the implicit and explicit measure
by computing the Cohen’s ds in the same manner as in
Experiment 1. Two difference scores were computed to
indicate the degree to which participants explicitly
self-stereotyped on positive and negative traits
(self-ratings on positive White American stereotypes –
self-ratings on positive African American stereotypes;
self-ratings on negative White stereotype – self-ratings
on negative African American stereotypes). Then, we
derived the Cohen’s d from the mean difference and
pooled standard deviation of these two difference scores.
For the implicit measure, we first computed four scores
that captured the degree to which participants implicitly
associated positive and negative, White American and
African American stereotypes to the self. These scores
were created by subtracting latencies in response to a par-
ticular type of stereotypes preceded by self primes from
the latencies to the same set of traits preceded by neutral
primes. With these four scores, we computed another two
difference scores to indicate the degree to which partici-
pants implicitly self-stereotyped positively and negatively
(e.g., implicit self-stereotyping on positive White Ameri-
can stereotypes – implicit self-stereotyping on positive
African American stereotypes). Finally we computed
the Cohen’s d based on the mean difference and the
pooled standard deviation of these difference scores. A
positive value of d indicates positive self-stereotyping
and a negative value indicates negative self-stereotyping
on both types of measures. On the explicit measure, par-
ticipants were more likely to apply negative in-group
traits to the self than positive in-group traits controlling
for their self-ratings on outgroup stereotypes (d ¼ .60).
This average d score was reliably different from 0,
t(27) ¼ 2.42, p ¼ .02. Consistent with the previous
analysis, the valence difference observed with explicit

self-ratings was substantially reduced when it was mea-
sured implicitly (d ¼ .15); the average d score was not reli-
ably different from 0, t(27) < 1. Furthermore, a paired-sample t test showed that White participants nega- tively self-stereotype to a greater extent on the explicit than implicit measure, t(27) ¼ 2.29, p ¼ .03.

Relationship between Explicit and Implicit
Self-Stereotyping

As in Experiment 1, we correlated the four individual
difference scores of implicit self-stereotyping on positive
and negative, in-group and out-group traits computed
for the previous analysis to the corresponding explicit
self-ratings. In general, there was no reliable relationship
between corresponding implicit and explicit measures
on any type of traits. Correlation coefficients for
positive stereotypes and negative stereotypes of White
Americans, and positive and negative stereotypes of
African Americans were r(28) ¼ .19, .12, .09, and .07,
respectively, all ps > .30. Therefore, as in Experiment 1,
there was no consistent correspondence between implicit
and explicit self-stereotyping.

Implicit Self-Stereotyping and Self-Esteem

Finally, we explored whether the four individual dif-
ference scores representing implicit association between
in-group and out-group stereotypic traits and the self
were related to self-esteem. We first correlated the degree
to which participants associated positive and negative
in-group stereotypic traits with the self to global and state
self-esteem. There was no reliable relationship between
negative implicit self-stereotyping and global or state
self-esteem (r ¼ .06 and r ¼ .07, ps > .70, respectively).
But positive implicit self-stereotyping seemed to relate
to self-esteem. Implicit self-stereotyping on positive traits
was associated with higher state self-esteem (r ¼ .42,
p ¼ .03). The relationship with global self-esteem was in
the same direction but weaker (r ¼ .30, p ¼ .12). There-
fore, positive but not negative implicit self-stereotyping
showed relationships with one’s self-esteem. In contrast,
we found no reliable relationship between the degrees
to which White participants associated out-group traits
with the self and global or state self-esteem (all
ps > .40). These exploratory findings suggest that implicit
self-stereotyping, as opposed to associations between
out-group traits and the self, can manifest in other
self-relevant judgments, but this relationship may be
limited to attributes with positive implications.

GENERAL DISCUSSION

In two experiments, we showed that women and White
Americans implicitly self-stereotype on both positive

124 LUN, SINCLAIR, COGBURN

and negative traits. Although it might not be surprising
that members of a social group would implicitly associ-
ate positive in-group stereotypic traits with the
self-concept, the fact that they also implicitly
self-stereotype on negative traits is novel and consistent
with the notion that people implicitly associate in-group
traits with the self regardless of the valence of the traits
(e.g., Jost, 2001; Smith & Henry, 1996; Turner et al.,
1987). Furthermore, it is notable that White Americans,
a group that is not typically perceived as a target of
stereotypes, were found to engage in implicit self-
stereotyping at all. These findings illustrate that perva-
sive cultural stereotypes subtly shape the self-concept
without individuals’ conscious awareness. Moreover,
unlike much of the previous work that focused on indi-
vidual differences (Greenwald et al., 2002; but see
Greenwald & Farnham, 2000), our research showed that
implicit self-stereotyping also occurs at a group level.

In contrast, evidence of explicit self-stereotyping on
these traits painted a less consistent picture. In Experi-
ment 1, women rated themselves higher on positive
feminine traits than other types of traits. In Experi-
ment 2, White Americans rated themselves equally high
on positive in-group and out-group stereotypic traits but
they were also least likely to endorse out-group negative
stereotypic traits as self-descriptive. Although women
and White Americans did not show a reliable difference
between implicit self-stereotyping on positive versus
negative traits, valence difference emerged on the expli-
cit measure. Hence, members of a social group may be
able to consciously eschew negative in-group stereotypes
as characteristics of the self, but they may still noncon-
sciously associate these traits with the self.

It is important to note that implicit and explicit
self-stereotyping was tested with one particular social
group in each experiment. The lack of a comparison
group (i.e., men, African Americans) invites an alterna-
tive interpretation about why there was no valence effect
on implicit self-stereotyping. Such interpretation, for
example, would suggest that women implicitly
self-stereotyped on both positive and negative traits
because feminine traits were simply more applicable to
the self-concept than masculine traits. We believe that
our results on explicit self-stereotyping cast some doubts
to this interpretation. If these traits were simply more
applicable, we would expect to find parallel results on
the explicit measure, but that was not the case. Although
this contention does not completely rule out the alter-
native interpretation, it is less likely that such interpreta-
tion would explain the same finding with two different
social groups and two different sets of stereotypes.

Not only did implicit and explicit self-stereotyping
yield different results, but there was also a general
lack of correlation between these measures for women
and White Americans. This suggests that individual

differences in people’s conscious self-perceptions on
in-group attributes do not have a direct relationship
with how much they implicitly associate those attributes
with the self. This inconsistency suggests that implicit
and explicit measures may capture different aspects of
one’s self-concept (Bosson, Swann, & Pennebaker,
2000; Spalding & Hardin, 1999). In light of recent per-
spectives on the correspondence between implicit and
explicit measures (Nosek, 2007), future research should
examine whether there are moderating factors that
influence the relationship between implicit and explicit
self-concepts such as the centrality of traits to the
self-concepts, identification with the in-group (Chen,
Chen, & Shaw, 2004) or different cultural beliefs about
self-perceptions (Hetts, Sakuma, & Pelham, 1999).

Although we did not find consistent correspondence
between explicit and implicit self-stereotyping, we found
a moderate relationship between positive, but not nega-
tive, implicit self-stereotyping and self-esteem among
White Americans. This finding suggests that even
though implicit self-stereotyping occurs on positive
and negative traits, it does not have to be costly to one’s
self-esteem. People may still preserve their positive
self-regard by dissociating negative in-group stereotypes
from their sense of self-worth. Previous research has
demonstrated a similar self-serving cognitive balancing
among members of socially devalued or low-status
groups, but they do so through suppressing positive
evaluations toward the in-group and thus by showing
out-group favoritism (Lane, Mitchell, & Banaji, 2005;
Rudman et al., 2002). The out-group favoritism was
thought to result from a propensity to reduce cognitive
inconsistency engendered by positive self-regards and
the negative implications of being the members of a
low-status group (Lane et al., 2005). Although past
research focuses on low-status groups and implicit
group evaluation, the current research suggests that
high-status group members also engage in a similar
cognitive balancing act because positive and negative
in-group stereotypes are being incorporated into the
self-concepts, as the present research has shown. Never-
theless, the current finding regarding the relationship
between implicit self-stereotyping and self-esteem is
preliminary. Its correlational nature leaves open the
interpretation that people who have higher self-esteem
tend to associate positive in-group traits with the self.

Future research should examine the relationship
between implicit self-stereotyping and other self-relevant
measures in greater detail. For example, one may expect
the relationship between implicit self-stereotyping and
self-esteem to be moderated by the perceived importance
of the traits in question. Past research suggests that the
importance individuals place on a specific self-view
determines the degree to which the self-view influences
explicit self-esteem (Pelham, 1995; Pelham & Swann,

IMPLICIT SELF-STEREOTYPING 125

1989). If people are deemphasizing the centrality of
certain stereotypes to protect self-esteem (Crocker &
Major, 1989; Major & Schmader, 1998), we would
expect perceived centrality of in-group stereotypes to
be related to the degree to which an individual implicitly
associates these traits with the self.

In addition to self-evaluations, future work on implicit
self-stereotyping may also help shed light on the mechan-
isms through which targets behave in a stereotype-
consistent manner (see Wheeler & Petty, 2001, for a
review). Research has demonstrated that targets are more
likely to behave in a stereotype-consistent manner when
in-group stereotypes are cognitively accessible (e.g., Levy,
1996; Steele & Aronson, 1995) or when these stereotypes
are made relevant to the self (Marx, Stapel, & Muller,
2005; Wheeler, Demarree, & Petty, 2005; Wheeler, Jarvis,
& Petty, 2001). Together, these findings suggest that the
degree to which individuals implicitly self-stereotype may
moderate the extent to which a target will behave in a
stereotype-consistent manner in a given situation.

In sum, consistent with the notion of influential the-
ories like the looking-glass self (e.g., Cooley, 1902) and
recent research on implicit cognition (e.g., Greenwald
& Banaji, 1995), cultural stereotypes of groups to which
an individual belongs, including those with negative
connotations, are incorporated into the self-concept.
Moreover, these associations between the self and ste-
reotypes are not subject to conscious introspection. As
a society continuously reinforces stereotypes of different
social groups, these beliefs may subtly shape the
self-concept of members of these groups without them
being consciously aware of it.

REFERENCES

Allport, G. W. (1979). The nature of prejudice. New York:

Addison-Wesley. (Original work published 1954).

Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (2000). The mind in the middle:

A practical guide to priming and automaticity research. In H. T.

Reis & C. M. Judd (Eds.), Handbook of research methods in social

and personality psychology (pp. 253–285). New York: Cambridge

University Press.

Bargh, J. A., & Pietromonaco, P. (1982). Automatic information pro-

cessing and social perception: The influence of trait information pre-

sented outside of conscious awareness on impression formation.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 43, 437–449.

Bosson, J. K., Swann, W. B. Jr., & Pennebaker, J. W. (2000). Stalking

the perfect measure of implicit self-esteem: The blind men and the

elephant revisited? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

79, 631–643.

Chen, S., Chen, K. Y., & Shaw, L. (2004). Self-verification motives at

the collective level of self-definition. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 86, 77–94.

Cooley, C. H. (1902). In human nature and the social order. New York:

Schocken Books.

Crocker, J., & Major, B. (1989). Social stigma and self-esteem: The

self-protective properties of stigma. Psychological Review, 96, 608–630.

Crocker, J., Major, B., & Steele, C. (1998). Social stigma. In D. T. Gilbert,

S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology

(Vol. 2, 4th ed., pp. 504–553). New York: McGraw-Hill.

Darley, J. M., & Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothesis-confirmation bias

in labeling effects. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 44,

20–33.

Dasgupta, N. (2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and

their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17, 143–169.

Dasgupta, N., McGhee, D. E., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R.

(2000). Automatic preference for White Americans: Eliminating

the familiarity explanation. Journal of Experimental Social

Psychology, 36, 316–328.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and

controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy, 56, 5–18.

Devine, P., & Elliot, A. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading?

The Princeton trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 21, 1139–1150.

Devos, T., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Implicit self and identity. In M. R.

Leary & J. P. Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91–

105). New

York: Guilford.

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American

city to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit

race attitudes. Child Development, 77, 1268–1281.

Fazio, R. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in

social psychological research. In C. Hendrick & M. S. Clark

(Eds.), Review of personality and social psychology: Vol. 11. Research

methods in personality and social psychology (pp. 74–97). Newbury

Park, CA: Sage.

Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D.

T. Gilbert & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), The handbook of social psychology

4th ed., Vol. 2 (pp. 357–411). Boston: McGraw-Hill.

Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A., Glick, P., & Xu, J. (2002). A model of (often

mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively

follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality

and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.

Fiske, S. T., Lin, M., & Neuberg, S. L. (1999). The continuum model:

Ten years later. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process the-

ories in social psychology (pp. 231–254). New York: Guilford.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Atti-

tudes, selfesteem and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.

Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D.,

Nosek, B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit

attitudes, stereotype, selfesteem, and self-concept. Psychological

Review, 109, 3–25.

Greenwald, A. G., & Farnham, S. D. (2000). Using the implicit

association test to measure self-esteem and self-concept. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 79, 1022–1038.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998).

Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit

association test. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 74,

1464–1480.

Hamilton, D., Sherman, J., & Ruvolo, C. M. (1990).

Stereotyped-based expectancies: Effects on information processing

and social behavior. Journal of Social Issues, 46, 36–60.

Heatherton, T. F., & Polivy, J. (1991). Development and validation of

a scale for measuring state selfesteem. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 60, 895–910.

Hetts, J. J., Sakuma, M., & Pelham, B. W. (1999). Two roads to posi-

tive regard: Implicit and explicit selfevaluation and culture. Journal

of Experimental Social Psychology, 35, 512–559.

Hilton, J. L., & von Hippel, W. (1996). Stereotypes. Annual Review of

Psychology, 4, 237–271.

Jost, J. T. (2001). Outgroup favoritism and the theory of system justi-

fication: A paradigm for investigating the effects of socioeconomic

126 LUN, SINCLAIR, COGBURN

success on stereotype content. In G. B. Moskowitz (Ed.), Cognitive

social psychology: The Princeton symposium on the legacy and future

of social cognition (pp. 89–102). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum.

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., Banaji, M. R., & Nosek, B. A. (2004). A decade of system

justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and uncon-

scious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881–920.

Jost, J. T., & Burgess, D. (2000). Attitudinal ambivalence and the con-

flict 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). Nonconscious

forms of system justification: Implicit and behavioral preferences

for higher status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,

38, 586–602.

Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1933). Racial stereotypes of one hundred

college students. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 3, 175–193.

Kay, A. C., & Jost, J. T. (2003). Complementary justice: Effects of

‘poor but happy’ and ‘poor but honest’ stereotype exemplars on

system justification and implicit activation of the justice motive.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 823–837.

Lane,K.A.,Mitchell,J.P.,&Banaji,M.R.(2005).Meandmygroup:Cultural

status can disrupt cognitive consistency. Social Cognition, 23, 353–386.

Levy, B. (1996). Improving memory in old age through implicit

self-stereotyping. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 71,

1092–1107.

Macrae, C. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2000). Social cognition:

Thinking categorically about others. Annual Review of Psychology,

51, 93–120.

Major, B., & Schmader, T. (1998). Coping with stigma through

psychological disengagement. In J. K. Swim & C. Stangor (Eds.),

Prejudice: The target’s perspective (pp. 219–241). San Diego, CA:

Academic Press.

Marx, D. M., Stapel, D. A., & Muller, D. (2005). We can do it: The

interplay of construal orientation and social comparisons under

threat. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 88, 432–446.

Mead, G. H. (1934). Mind, self and society. Chicago: University of

Chicago Press.

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. (2007). Implicit-explicit relations. Current Directions in

Psychological Science, 16, 65–69.

Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The go=no-go association task.

Social Cognition, 19, 625–664.

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002a). Harvesting

implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site.

Group Dynamics: Theory, Research, & Practice, 6, 101–115.

Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002b).

Math ¼ male, me ¼ female, therefore math ¼ = ¼ me. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 44–59.

Olivier, K., & Snyder, M. (2003). Stereotypes and behavioral confirma-

tion: From interpersonal to intergroup perspectives. In M. Zanna

(Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 35,

pp. 153–234). New York: Academic Press.

Pelham, B. W. (1995). Self-investment and self-esteem: Evidence for a

Jamesian model of selfworth. Journal of Personality & Social

Psychology, 69, 1141–1150.

Pelham, B. W., & Swann, W. B. (1989). From self-conceptions to

self-worth: On the sources and structure of global self-esteem. Jour-

nal of Personality & Social Psychology, 57, 672–680.

Perdue, C. W., Dovidio, J. F., Gurtman, M. B., & Tyler, R. B. (1990).

Us and them: Social categorization and the process of intergroup

bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 59, 475–486.

Ratcliff, R. (1993). Methods for dealing with reaction time outliers.

Psychological Bulletin, 114, 510–532.

Rosenberg, M. (1965). Society and the adolescent self-image. Princeton,

NJ: Princeton University Press.

Rudman, L. A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions

in Psychological Science, 13, 79–82.

Rudman, L. A., Feinberg, J., & Fairchild, K. (2002). Minority mem-

bers’ implicit attitudes: Automatic ingroup bias as a function of

group status. Social Cognition, 20, 294–320.

Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit

self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and

in-group share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin, 27, 1164–1178.

Simon, B., Glassner-Bayerl, B., & Stratenwerth, I. (1991). Stereotyping

and self-stereotyping in a natural intergroup context: The case of

heterosexual and homosexual men. Social Psychology Quarterly,

54, 252–266.

Simon, B., & Hamilton, D. (1994). Self-stereotyping and social

context: The effects of relative in-group size and in-group status.

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 699–711.

Smith, E. R., Coats, S., & Walling, D. (1999). Overlapping mental

representations of self, in-group, and partner: Further response time

evidence and a connectionist model. Personality and Social Psychol-

ogy Bulletin, 25, 873–882.

Smith, E. R., & Henry, S. (1996). An in-group becomes part of the self:

Response time evidence. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,

22, 635–642.

Spalding, L. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1999). Unconscious unease and

self-handicapping: Behavioral consequences of individual differ-

ences in implicit and explicit self-esteem. Psychological Science, 10,

535–539.

Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in

the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants

and implications. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 37,

1660–1672.

Steele, C. M., & Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat and the intellec-

tual test performance of African Americans. Journal of Personality

& Social Psychology, 69, 797–811.

Tajfel, H., & Turner, J. (1986). The social identity theory of inter-

group behavior. In S. Worchel & W. Austin (Eds.), Psychology

of intergroup relations (pp. 59–86). Monterey, CA: Brooks=Cole.

Tice, D. M., & Wallace, H. M. (2003). The reflected self: Creating

yourself as (you think) others see you. In M. R. Leary & J. P.

Tangney (Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 91–105). New

York: Guilford.

Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D., & Wetherell,

M. S. (1987). Rediscovering the social group: A self-categorization

theory. Oxford, UK: Basil Blackwell.

Wheeler, S. C., Demarree, G. K., & Petty, R. E. (2005). The roles of the

self in primingtobehavior effects. In A. Tesser, J. V. Wood, & D. A.

Stapel (Eds.), On building, defending and regulating the self: A psycho-

logical perspective (pp. 245–271). New York: Psychology Press.

Wheeler, S. C., Jarvis, W. B. G., & Petty, R. E. (2001). Think unto

others: The selfdestructive impact of negative racial stereotypes.

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 173–180.

Wheeler, S. C., & Petty, R. E. (2001). The effect of stereotype activa-

tion on behavior: A review of possible mechanisms. Psychological

Bulletin, 127, 797–826.

Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for

racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with ques-

tionnaire measures. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology,

72, 262–274.

Word, C. O., Zanna, M. P., & Cooper, J. (1974). The nonverbal media-

tion of selffulfilling prophecies in interracial interaction. Journal of

Experimental Social Psychology, 10, 109–120.

IMPLICIT SELF-STEREOTYPING 127