Cox William T L, Xie Xizhou, Devine Patricia G
Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin - Madison, United States of America.
Inequity Agents of Change Nonprofit, www.biashabit.com, United States of America.
J Exp Soc Psychol. 2022 Sep;102. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104380. Epub 2022 Jun 25.
In the present work, we set out to assess whether and how much people learn in response to their stereotypic assumptions being confirmed, being disconfirmed, or remaining untested. In Study 1, participants made a series of judgments that could be influenced by stereotypes and received feedback that confirmed stereotypes the majority of the time, feedback that disconfirmed stereotypes the majority of the time, or no feedback on their judgments. Replicating past work on confirmation bias, patterns in the conditions with feedback indicated that pieces of stereotype-confirming evidence exerted more influence than stereotype-disconfirming evidence. Participants in the Stereotype-Confirming condition stereotyped more over time, but rates of stereotyping for participants in the Stereotype-Disconfirming condition remained unchanged. Participants who received no feedback, and thus no evidence, stereotyped more over time, indicating that, matching our core hypothesis, they learned from their own untested assumptions. Study 2 provided a direct replication of Study 1. In Study 3, we extended our assessment to memory. Participants made judgments and received a mix of confirmatory, disconfirmatory, and no feedback and were subsequently asked to remember the feedback they received on each trial, if any. Memory tests for the no feedback trials revealed that participants often misremembered that their untested assumptions were confirmed. Supplementing null hypothesis significance testing, Bayes Factor analyses indicated the data in Studies 1, 2, and 3 provided moderate-to-extreme evidence in favor of our hypotheses. Discussion focuses on the challenges these learning patterns create for efforts to reduce stereotyping.
在本研究中,我们着手评估人们是否以及在多大程度上会因自身刻板印象假设得到证实、被证伪或未被检验而进行学习。在研究1中,参与者做出了一系列可能受刻板印象影响的判断,并收到了以下三种反馈:大多数时候证实刻板印象的反馈、大多数时候证伪刻板印象的反馈,或者对其判断没有反馈。重复以往关于证实性偏差的研究,有反馈条件下的模式表明,证实刻板印象的证据比证伪刻板印象的证据影响更大。随着时间的推移,处于刻板印象证实条件下的参与者表现出更多的刻板印象,但处于刻板印象证伪条件下的参与者的刻板印象发生率保持不变。没有收到反馈(因此也没有证据)的参与者随着时间的推移表现出更多的刻板印象,这表明,与我们的核心假设相符,他们从自己未经检验的假设中进行了学习。研究2对研究1进行了直接复制。在研究3中,我们将评估扩展到了记忆方面。参与者做出判断并收到了证实性、证伪性和无反馈的混合反馈,随后被要求回忆他们在每次试验中收到的反馈(如果有的话)。对无反馈试验的记忆测试表明,参与者经常错误地记得他们未经检验的假设得到了证实。除了零假设显著性检验,贝叶斯因子分析表明,研究1、2和3中的数据提供了中度到极端的证据支持我们的假设。讨论聚焦于这些学习模式给减少刻板印象的努力带来的挑战。