Fig 1.
Possible Forms of Directionality.
Table 1.
Examples of Directionality Across Domains and Levels of Analysis.
Table 2.
Stimulus Phrases for Black and Gay Stereotype Networks in Study 1.
Fig 2.
Experimental Design Flowchart.
The directional structure of each stereotype link is assessed via a two-condition, between-subjects experiment. To test the gay–lisp stereotype, for example, participants are randomly assigned to produce associates for either gay or lisp. We count how many participants in each condition had this link activated (i.e., how many participants in the gay condition responded with lisp and how many participants in the lisp condition responded with gay). These counts are 1) submitted to a Yates’ chi-square test of independence, and 2) used to compute an effect size d. Yates’ chi-squares were calculated using [55], and logit-method d-scores and their 95% CIs were calculated using [56]. In the d-score calculations, we added 0.5 to each cell’s frequency count to avoid dividing by zero. Higher d-scores indicate more positive, Group → Attribute directionality, and lower d-scores indicate more negative, Attribute → Group directionality.
Table 3.
Directionality of Black Stereotype Links.
Table 4.
Directionality of Gay Stereotype Links.
Fig 3.
Study 1 Distributions of Directionality D-Scores.
The gay stereotype links (dpooled = -1.33; Bottom Panel) trended more strongly toward negative (Attribute → Group) directionality than the Black stereotype links (dpooled = -0.53; Top Panel). Each set of directionality d-scores is normally distributed.
Table 5.
Social Acceptability Ratings in Study 2.
Table 6.
Directionality of Study 3 Stereotype Links and Comparison to Same Links in Study 1.
Table 7.
Stimulus Phrases for Study 4.
Table 8.
Directionality of Lesbian, Jew, and Arab Stereotype Links.
Table 9.
Directionality of Catholic and White Stereotype Links.
Table 10.
Directionality of Democrat and Republican Stereotype Links.