Mental simulation and sexual prejudice reduction: The debiasing role of counterfactual thinking

Journal of Applied Social Psychology

Volumn 43, Issue 1, 2013, Pages 190-194

  Miller, Audrey K ^a   Markman, Keith D ^b   Wagner, Maverick M ^a   Hunt, Amy N ^a  

^a SAM HOUSTON STATE UNIVERSITY   (United States)

^b OHIO UNIVERSITY   (United States)

Author keywords

[No Author keywords available]

Indexed keywords

EID: 84872664117     PISSN: 00219029     EISSN: 15591816     Source Type: Journal    
DOI: 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2012.00992.x     Document Type: Article

References (19)

1. Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Cambridge, MA: Addison-Wesley.
2. Cook, S. W. (1985). Experimenting on social issues: The case of school desegregation. American Psychologist, 40, 452-460.
3. Crisp, R. J., & Turner, R. N. (2009). Can imagined interactions produce positive perceptions? Reducing prejudice through simulated social contact. American Psychologist, 64, 231-240.
4. Festinger, L., & Kelley, H. H. (1951). Changing attitudes through social contact. Ann Arbor, MI: Institute for Social Research.
5. Galinsky, A. D., & Moskowitz, G. B. (2000). Counterfactuals as behavioral primes: Priming the simulation heuristic and consideration of alternatives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 252-282.
6. Herek, G. M. (1988). Heterosexuals' attitudes toward lesbians and gay men: Correlates and gender differences. Journal of Sex Research, 25, 451-477.
7. Herek, G. M. (2007). Confronting sexual stigma and prejudice: Theory and practice. Journal of Social Issues, 63, 905-925.
8. Markman, K. D., Klein, W. M. P., & Suhr, J. A. (2009). Handbook of imagination and mental simulation. New York, NY: Psychology Press.
9. Markman, K. D., Lindberg, M. J., Kray, L. J., & Galinsky, A. D. (2007). Implications of counterfactual structure for creative generation and analytical problem solving. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 33, 312-324.
10. Markman, K. D., & Miller, A. K. (2006). Depression, control, and counterfactual thinking: Functional for whom? Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 25, 210-227.
11. Pettigrew, T. F. (1998). Intergroup contact theory. Annual Review of Psychology, 49, 65-85.
12. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, 751-783.
13. Pettigrew, T. F., & Tropp, L. R. (2008). How does intergroup contact reduce prejudice? Meta-analytic tests of three mediators. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 922-934.
14. Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 811-832.
15. Ratcliff, J. J., Lassiter, G. D., Markman, K. D., & Snyder, C. J. (2006). Gender differences in attitudes toward gay men and lesbians: The role of motivation to respond without prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 32, 1325-1338.
16. Roese, N. J. (1994). The functional basis of counterfactual thinking. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 805-818.
17. Stathi, S., & Crisp, R. J. (2008). Imagining intergroup contact promotes projection to outgroups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44, 943-957.
18. Turner, R. N., Crisp, R. J., & Lambert, E. (2007). Imagining intergroup contact can improve intergroup attitudes. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 427-441.
19. Voci, A., & Hewstone, M. (2003). Intergroup contact and prejudice towards immigrants in Italy: The mediational role of anxiety and the moderational role of group salience. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 6, 37-54.