Please wait a minute...
Acta Psychologica Sinica    2019, Vol. 51 Issue (10) : 1157-1170     DOI: 10.3724/SP.J.1041.2019.01157
Reports of Empirical Studies |
Cognitive control strategies from the perspective of perceptual conflict: An example of stereotyped information and counterstereotyped information
CUI Yichen1,2,3,WANG Pei4(),CUI Yajuan5
1 Institute of Mental Health, Nanjing Xiaozhuang University, Nanjing 210017, China
2 Mental Health Education Guidance Center, Nanjing Forestry University, Nanjing 210037, China
3 School of Social and Behavioral Sciences, Nanjing University, Nanjing 210023, China
4 Faculty of Education, East China Normal University, Shanghai 200062, China
5 Shenzhen V-Grow Power Logistics Co., Ltd., Shenzhen 518067, China
Download: PDF(829 KB)   HTML Review File (1 KB) 
Export: BibTeX | EndNote | Reference Manager | ProCite | RefWorks     Supporting Info

The question of whether the activation of stereotype is automatic activation (automatic activation) or controlled (inhibition) has been controversial. With the in-depth study, “stereotype activation is a cognitive process which is influenced by many cognitive factors, and the conditional automation process” has attracted more and more attention. Among them, the most discussed factors are category information, prompt clue, directional attention and so on. In addition, it also involves interpersonal trust, perspective taking, cognitive psychology, imagination, perception of their age and other factors. In recent years, researchers have explained how social categories start stereotyped information from the perspective of perceived conflict. Stereotype information processing can help activate stereotype. So, does stereotype activation affect cognitive control strategies? When stereotype information is disturbed by other information and even affected by counter stereotyped information, does the stereotype associated with it automatically activate? When the two types of conflict information are subliminal priming, does cognitive control, which regulates the formation of impressions, have an effective inhibitory effect on stereotype activation? In response to these questions, the researchers began to focus on the influence of other people’s visual cues on impression formation to others. These studies controlling the stimulus presentation time and masking stimuli, so that part of the subliminal stimuli presented in the other part, stimuli presented in the above threshold. As a result, we can compare the similarities and differences between the effects of subliminal cues and subliminal cues on cognitive control. Studies have shown that when the participants are initiated by relevant cues, they acquire attributes about a social group in the long-term memory system. This information processing process is a rapid and implicit process of perceptual preparation, which consists of two stages: the social classification based on stereotyped information and the stereotype activation based on the extracted social categories. The two stages of information processing are divided into two parallel processing cognitive systems: the previous stage involves the intentional operating system, and the latter stage relates to the automatic monitoring system. Can the two cognitive systems be regarded as the carriers of active control and reactive control in the whole process of impression formation? At present, few studies have directly related to the relationship between stereotype processing and cognitive control strategies. In view of this, this study assumes that: (1) When there is a perceived conflict stereotype information and counterstereotype information, and the perceptual load is high, the impression formed by the effects of the reactive control to activate counterstereotype; and when the perceptual load is low, the impression formed by the proactive control of the role of prone to stereotype bias. (2) Cognitive control takes a “double-edged sword” model for conflict information of different intensity (stereotyped information vs. counterstereotyped information). That means that when he processing method is controlled by the proactive control of the intentional operating system (the conscious, conscious processing) is performed and when the two classes of information start simultaneously at the threshold, the processing mode is controlled by the reactive control of the automatic monitoring system (the processing of the unconscious and unconscious control).

In this study, we used stereotype information and counterstereotyped information as an example and the experimental tasks were divided into two levels: high or low perceptual load or threshold, and subliminal priming by using the word sense Stroop paradigm and masked version of goal priming paradigm. Experiment 1 explored the cognitive control strategy in the context of conflict between stereotype information and counterstereotyped information perception. Using 2 (perceived load: high vs. low) × 2 (gender specific words and gender attributes word perception: conflict vs. compatibility) mix design. Using word meaning Stroop paradigm of to divided manipulation of perceptual load into two categories: gender traits (target) displayed above the same gender attribute words (such as “grumpy-male”) in the low perceptual load task and gender words each side presents a gender attribute words and are compatible with the gender words or conflict (such as male-grumpy-female) in the high perceptual load task. Experiment 2 explored the conflict information intensity of stereotype information and counterstereotyped information impacted on the cognitive control strategy. A hybrid design using 2 (conflict information intensity: subliminal priming vs. subliminal priming) × 2 (two types of gender trait words perception: conflict vs. compatibility). Using masked version of the start-target paradigm and affective error attribution program to make a part of other people’s information is shown in subliminal manner, while another part of others’ information is presented in a threshold manner by controlling the presentation time of two kinds of information and masking stimuli. So that we can investigate how the cognitive control strategy of stereotype formation is affected by conflict intensity.

In Experiment 1, the dynamic changes of perceptual load determine the individual’s cognitive control strategy of stereotyped information and counterstereotyped information. The results showed the dynamic change of conflict information intensity and perceived load determines individual’s cognitive control strategy of stereotyped information and counterstereotyped information. Reactive control consumes less cognitive resources, to make processing of stereotype consistent information more quickly, to make processing of stereotype conflict information more slowly, and to activate counterstereotype easily. On the contrary, proactive control consumes such more cognitive resources as to slower processing of stereotype consistent information, to quicken processing of stereotype conflict information and to prone to stereotype bias easily. In Experiment 2, cognitive control takes a “double-edged sword” model of stereotyped information and counterstereotyped information. When stereotyped information and counterstereotyped information start simultaneously on threshold, the processing mode is controlled by the initiative of the intentional operating system which is the processing of involuntary, unconscious control. And when the two types of information start simultaneously at the threshold, the processing mode is controlled by the automatic monitoring system which is the processing of unconscious and unconscious control.

The activation and expression of stereotype are closely related to the monitoring and coordination of cognitive control. In particular, people need stronger cognitive control in their daily life to avoid biased judgments caused by stereotyped information. As the saying goes, “Standers-by see more than gamesters.” Actor/observer effects show that the processing of the impression of others is determined by their own cognitive control mechanism. This phenomenon can be explained by experiment 1 and Experiment 2 respectively. These results indicate that the individual, individuals can flexibly balance among the two cognitive control systems (intentional operating system vs. automatic monitoring system) and adjust their weights (either initiate active control or bias reactive control), thus forming the most favorable impression processing strategy for others. Even under the threshold of perception, individuals can process the impression of others through unconscious cognitive control.

According to Gestalt theory, group entity makes stereotyped group impression stereotype by influencing people’s conformity processing of group members’ information. Subsequently, stereotyped group impression has strong social significance because of social factors and group classification. So they can be maintained and strengthened continuously, and eventually become stereotyped. Then, whether group entity is a moderator variable contained in the cognitive control mechanism, and how is it related to cognitive control? In this regard, follow-up studies can further develop the study of the dynamic construction of impression formation cognitive control.

Keywords stereotype activation      conflict information intensity      cognitive control strategy      proactive control      reactive control     
ZTFLH:  B849:C91  
Corresponding Authors: Pei WANG     E-mail:
Issue Date: 19 August 2019
E-mail this article
E-mail Alert
Articles by authors
CUI Yichen
CUI Yajuan
Cite this article:   
CUI Yichen,WANG Pei,CUI Yajuan. Cognitive control strategies from the perspective of perceptual conflict: An example of stereotyped information and counterstereotyped information[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(10): 1157-1170.
URL:     OR
知觉负载 性别特质词 性别属性词 信息知觉 M SE
男性特质词 冲突 582.45 20.69
相容 574.48 20.87
女性特质词 冲突 578.47 20.27
相容 577.18 20.52
男性特质词 冲突 632.09 21.44
相容 634.52 22.08
女性特质词 冲突 623.54 22.49
相容 636.25 21.62
观测指标 印象加工的平均反应时自然对数 印象加工的情绪效价反应比(%)
阈上启动 阈下启动 阈上启动 阈下启动
冲突 相容 冲突 相容 冲突 相容 冲突 相容
M 6.345 5.938 5.762 5.789 0.371 0.544 0.691 0.685
SE 0.093 0.099 0.080 0.085 0.186 0.262 0.184 0.181
[1] Aarts H., Custers R., & Marien H. ( 2008). Preparing and motivating behavior outside of awareness. Science, 319( 5870), 1639-1639.
[2] Algom D., Chajut E., & Lev S. ( 2004). A rational look at the emotional Stroop phenomenon: A generic slowdown, not a Stroop effect. Journal of Experimental Psychology General, 133( 3), 323-338.
[3] Awh E., Belopolsky A. V., & Theeuwes J. ( 2012). Top-down versus bottom-up attentional control: A failed theoretical dichotomy. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16( 8), 437-443.
[4] Baars, B. J. ( 2002). The conscious access hypothesis: Origins and recent evidence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 6( 1), 47-52.
[5] Bailey K., West R., & Anderson C. A. ( 2010). A negative association between video game experience and proactive cognitive control. Psychophysiology, 47( 1), 34-42.
[6] Banse R., Seise J., & Zerbes N. ( 2001). Implicit attitudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the IAT. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48( 2), 145-160.
[7] Bartholow, B. D., & Dickter, C. L. ( 2008). A response conflict account of the effects of stereotypes on racial categorization. Social Cognition, 26( 3), 314-332.
[8] Bartholow B. D., Dickter C. L., & Sestir M. A. ( 2006). Stereotype activation and control of race bias: Cognitive control of inhibition and its impairment by alcohol. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90( 2), 272-287.
[9] Beer, A., & Brooks , C. ( 2011). Information quality in personality judgment: The value of personal disclosure. Journal of Research in Personality, 45( 2), 175-185.
[10] Bijleveld E., Custers R., & Aarts H. ( 2011). Once the money is in sight: Distinctive effects of conscious and unconscious rewards on task performance. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47( 4), 865-869.
[11] Boy, F. Husain M., Singh K. D., & Sumner P. ( 2010). Supplementary motor area activations in unconscious inhibition of voluntary action. Experimental Brain Research, 206( 4), 441-448.
[12] Braver, T. S. ( 2012). The variable nature of cognitive control: A dual mechanisms framework. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 16( 2), 106-113.
[13] Bugg, J. M., & Braver, T. S. ( 2016). Proactive control of irrelevant task rules during cued task switching. Psychological Research, 80( 5), 860-876.
[14] Capa R. L., Bustin G. M., Cleeremans A., & Hansenne M. ( 2011). Conscious and unconscious reward cues can affect a critical component of executive control. Experimental Psychology, 58( 5), 370-375.
[15] Clow, K. A., & Esses, V. M. ( 2007). Expectancy effects in social stereotyping: Automatic and controlled processing in the neely paradigm. Canadian Journal of Behavioural Science, 39( 3), 161-173.
[16] Conrey F. R., Sherman J. W., Gawronski B., Hugenberg K., & Groom C. J. ( 2005). Separating multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The quad model of implicit task performance. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89( 4), 469-487.
[17] Cui Y. C., Wang P., & Tan C. H . ( 2016). The influence of implicit theories of personality on processing strategy of person impressions. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 48( 12), 1538-1550.
[17] [ 崔诣晨, 王沛, 谈晨皓 . ( 2016). 内隐人格理论对他人印象加工策略的影响. 心理学报, 48( 12), 1538-1550.]
[18] Cui, Y. C., & Wang, P. ( 2016). The dynamic interactive model of person construal on person perception. Advances in Psychological Science, 26( 4), 678-687.
[18] [ 崔诣晨, 王沛 . ( 2018). 他人知觉的个体构念动态交互模型. 心理科学进展, 26( 4), 678-687.]
[19] Custers, R., & Aarts, H. ( 2010). The unconscious will: How the pursuit of goals operates outside of conscious awareness. Science, 329( 5987), 47-50.
[20] Evans, J., & Coventry, K. ( 2006). A dual-process approach to behavioral addiction: The case of gambling. In R. W. Wiers & A. W. Stacy (Eds.), Handbook of Implicit Cognition & Addiction ( pp. 29-43). Thousands Oaks: Sage.
[21] Garavan, H., & Weierstall, K. ( 2012). The neurobiology of reward and cognitive control systems and their role in incentivizing health behavior. Preventive Medicine, 55( 5), S17-S23.
[22] Hamilton D. L. , & Trolier, T. K.( 1986) . Stereotypes and stereotyping: An overview of the cognitive approach In J F Dovidio & S L Gaertner (Eds), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp 127-163) Orlando: Academic Press An overview of the cognitive approach. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.), Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 127-163). Orlando: Academic Press.
[23] Hoza B., Bukowski W. M., & Beery S. ( 2000). Assessing peer network and dyadic loneliness. Journal of Clinical Child Psychology, 29( 1), 119-128.
[24] Hugenberg, K., & Sczesny , S. ( 2006). On wonderful women and seeing smiles: Social categorization moderates the happy face response latency advantage. Social Cognition, 24( 5), 516-539.
[25] Ito, T. A., & Urland, G. R. ( 2003). Race and gender on the brain: Electrocortical measures of attention to the race and gender of multiply categorizable individuals. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 85( 4), 616-626.
[26] Jia L., Dickter C. L., Luo J. L., Xiao X., Yang Q., Lei M., … Zhang Q. ( 2012). Different brain mechanisms between stereotype activation and application: Evidence from an ERP study. International Journal of Psychology, 47( 1), 58-66.
[27] Jimura K., Locke H. S., & Braver T. S. ( 2010). Prefrontal cortex mediation of cognitive enhancement in rewarding motivational contexts. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 107( 19), 8871-8876.
[28] Klein O., Clark A. E., & Lyons A. ( 2010). When the social becomes personal: Exploring the role of common ground in stereotype communication. Social Cognition, 28( 3), 329-352.
[29] Macrae, C. N., & Quadflieg, B. ( 2010). Person perception. In S. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of Social Psychology( 5th ed., pp. 428-463). New York: McGraw-Hill.
[30] Magen, H., & Cohen, A. ( 2007). Modularity beyond perception: Evidence from single task interference paradigms. Cognitive Psychology, 55( 1), 1-36.
[31] Matsumoto A., Ichikawa Y., Kanayama N., Ohira H., & Iidaka T. ( 2006). Gamma band activity and its synchronization reflect the dysfunctional emotional processing in alexithymic persons. Psychophysiology, 43( 6), 533-540.
[32] Matsumoto, K., & Tanaka, K. ( 2004). Conflict and cognitive control. Science, 303( 5660), 969-970.
[33] Mc Culloch K. C., Ferguson M. J., Kawada C. C. K., & Bargh J. A. ( 2008). Taking a closer look: On the operation of nonconscious impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44( 3), 614-623.
[34] Melara, R. D., & Algom, B. ( 2003). Driven by information: A tectonic theory of Stroop effects. Psychological Review, 110( 3), 422-471.
[35] Meltzer, M. A., & Nielson, K. A. ( 2010). Memory for emotionally provocative words in alexithymia: A role for stimulus relevance. Consciousness & Cognition, 19( 4), 1062-1068.
[36] Ortells J. J., Daza M. T., & Fox E. ( 2003). Semantic activation in the absence of perceptual awareness. Perception & Psychophysics, 65( 8), 1307-1317.
[37] Payne, B. K. ( 2005). Conceptualizing control in social cognition: How executive functioning modulates the expression of automatic stereotyping. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 89( 4), 488-503.
[38] Payne B. K., Hall D. L., Cameron C. D., & Bishara A. J. ( 2010). A process model of affect misattribution. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36( 10), 1397-1408.
[39] Posten, A. C., & Mussweiler, B. ( 2013). When distrust frees your mind: The stereotype-reducing effects of distrust. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 105( 4), 567-584.
[40] Quadflieg, S., & Macrae, C. N. ( 2011). Stereotypes and stereotyping: What’s the brain got to do with it? European Review of Social Psychology, 22( 1), 215-273.
[41] Radvansky G. A., Copeland D. E., & Hippel W. V. ( 2010). Stereotype activation, inhibition, and aging. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46( 1), 51-60.
[42] Richards, Z., & Hewstone , M. ( 2001). Subtyping and subgrouping: Processes for the prevention and promotion of stereotype change. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5( 1), 52-73.
[43] Rim S. Y., Uleman J. S., & Trope Y. ( 2009). Spontaneous trait inference and construal level theory: Psychological distance increases nonconscious trait thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45( 5), 1088-1097.
[44] Robertson, D. A., & Weiss, B. ( 2017). In the eye of the beholder: Can counter-stereotypes change perceptions of older adults’ social status? Psychology and Aging, 32( 6), 531-542.
[45] Roelofs A., van Turennout M., & Coles, M. G. H. ( 2006). Anterior cingulate cortex activity can be independent of response conflict in Stroop-like tasks. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 103( 37), 13884-13889.
[46] Rüsch N., Corrigan P. W., Todd A. R., & Bodenhausen G. V. ( 2011). Automatic stereotyping against people with schizophrenia, schizoaffective and affective disorders. Psychiatry Research, 186( 1), 34-39.
[47] Savine, A. C., & Braver, T. S. ( 2010). Motivated cognitive control: Reward incentives modulate preparatory neural activity during task-switching. Journal of Neuroscience, 30( 31), 10294-10305.
[48] Sherman J. W., Kruschke J. K., Sherman S. J., Percy E. J., Petrocelli J. V., & Conrey F. R. ( 2009). Attentional processes in stereotype formation: A common model for category accentuation and illusory correlation. Journal of Personality & Social Psychology, 96( 2), 305-323.
[49] Skorinko J. L., Sinclair S., & Conklin L. ( 2012). Perspective taking shapes the impact of significant-other representations. Self & Identity, 11(2), 170-184.
[50] Spielberg J. M., Miller G. A., Heller W., & Banich M. T. ( 2015). Flexible brain network reconfiguration supporting inhibitory control. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 112( 32), 10020-10025.
[51] The research group “Thesaurus” commonly used in modern Chinese. ( 2008). Commonly used in modern Chinese vocabulary. Beijing: The Commercial Press.
[51] [ 《现代汉语常用词表》课题组. ( 2008). 现代汉语常用词表. 北京: 商务印书馆.]
[52] van Gaal S., Lamme V. A. F., Fahrenfort J. J., & Ridderinkhof K. R. ( 2011). Dissociable brain mechanisms underlying the conscious and unconscious control of behavior. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 23( 1), 91-105.
[1] YANG Yaping, XU Qiang, ZHU Tingting, ZHENG Xutao, DONG Xiaoye, CHEN Qingwei. The behavioral patterns of stereotype activation among four different warmth-competence social groups based on Stereotype Content Model[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2019, 51(10): 1143-1156.
[2] YANG Yaping; WANG Pei; YIN Zhihui; CHEN Qingwei; FENG Xiaying. The Pattern and Neural Correlates of Unintentional Stereotype Activation[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2015, 47(4): 488-502.
[3] XU Lei;WANG Lijun;ZHAO Yuanfang;TAN Jinfeng;CHEN Antao. Subliminal Reward Modulates the Tradeoff between Proactive and Reactive Cognitive Control[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2014, 46(4): 459-466.
[4] ZHANG Xiao-Bin;ZUO Bin. Two-Stage Model of Stereotype Activation Based on Face Perception[J]. Acta Psychologica Sinica, 2012, 44(9): 1189-1201.
Full text



Copyright © Acta Psychologica Sinica
Support by Beijing Magtech