Accountability moderates member-to-group generalization: Testing a dual process model of stereotype change Stefania Paolini a, * , Richard J. Crisp b , Kylie McIntyre a a School of Psychology, University of Newcastle, Callaghan, NSW 2308, Australia b Richard Crisp, Department of Psychology, Keynes College, University of Kent, Canterbury CT2 7NP, United Kingdom article info Article history: Received 16 July 2008 Revised 9 December 2008 Available online 31 March 2009 Keywords: Accountability Meta-cognition Judgment vigilance Generalization Stereotyping abstract According to contemporary models of accountability [Lerner, J.S., & Tetlock, P.E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275], when individuals are warned that they will be held accountable for their decisions, both information processing and judgment vigilance increase. We used an established generalization paradigm [Garcia-Marques, L., & Mackie, D.M. (1999). The impact of stereotype incongruent information on perceived group variability and stereotype change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 979–990] to extend the application of these principles to the process of member-to-group generalization in stereotype change. As predicted, across the three stud- ies (Ns = 60, 78, and 101), accountability was found to amplify generalization under control conditions, both when the member information was stereotypical (Experiment 1) and counterstereotypical (Exper- iments 2 and 3). Accountability was found to attenuate generalization (Experiments 2 and 3) when a meta-judgmental cue discredited the validity of the member information for the group judgment. Ancil- lary evidence from Experiments 2 and 3 suggests a mediational role for the cognitive fencing-off of the member information from the group schema. The implications of the observed interplay between stereo- typing and meta-cognitions for theory and policy are discussed. Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. On February 13, the Australian opposition leader, Brendan Nel- son, told Parliament the dramatic story of an Aboriginal girl sepa- rated under duress from her mother on a dusty road of the New South Wales Outback. Soon after, Mr. Nelson joined Prime Minister Kevin Rudd in his formal apology to all of those Aboriginal people forcibly removed from their families by White police and bureau- crats over the last 70 years. These events will make history, but they also raise important psychological questions: Can the story of a single Aboriginal girl really make a difference in the mind of a highly accountable politician and help overturn half a century’s tenacious resistance from Mr. Nelson’s political party to giving a formal (intergroup) apology? The research reported in this article focuses on accountability, a defining feature of most roles of leadership and responsibility (Pin- ter et al., 2007; Tetlock, 1992). Specifically, we extend principles of accountability established in more general research into judgment and decision-making to models of stereotype change. We investi- gated the impact that accountability has on the process of mem- ber-to-group generalization whereby people generalize their salient and immediately accessible experience with a limited num- ber of group members to the judgment of the group as a whole (Paolini, Hewstone, Rubin, & Pay, 2004). Three experiments are reported that used an established member-to-group generalization paradigm (Garcia-Marques & Mackie, 1999) and tested two basic principles of contemporary models of accountability (Lerner & Tet- lock, 1999; Tetlock, 1992): that accountability increases both extensive information processing and judgment vigilance. In so doing, this research is the first to identify conditions under which accountability amplifies member-to-group generalization and con- ditions under which accountability attenuates generalization. Accountability deepens information processing and increases judgment vigilance Politicians, priests, sporting stars and many of those who exert considerable influence in various constituencies of our society go through the everyday burden and thrills of social scrutiny. They carry with them an implicit or explicit expectation that they may be called on to justify their attitudes, beliefs, and actions toward others. They know they may suffer serious sanctions if they fail to provide satisfactory justifications for what they do, but also that they may enjoy considerable rewards for providing compelling ac- counts of their actions (Simonson & Nye, 1992). Accountability has captured the imagination of researchers and policy makers because it interfaces the individual to the institution, but also because of its promise as a panacea to biased decision-making. The hope was 0022-1031/$ - see front matter Ó 2009 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2009.03.005 * Corresponding author. Fax: +61 (0)2 49216980. E-mail address: Stefania.Paolini@Newcastle.edu.au (S. Paolini). Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 45 (2009) 676–685 Contents lists available at ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp