European Journal of Social Psychology

Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 563–568 (2010)

Special issue introduction

Origins of intergroup bias: Developmental and social cognitive research on

YARROW DUNHAM1* AND JULIANE DEGNER2**

Abstract

Prejudice and stereotyping are central to research and theorizing in social psychology. Yet, all too often this work tacitly
assumes that these phenomena spring into existence fully formed in adults. This special issue originates from the need to
integrate adult social psychological approaches with developmental inquiry into the ontogenetic and phylogenetic origins
of prejudice and stereotyping. The diverse set of nine papers in this special issue demonstrates the utility of this
interdisciplinary approach. In this introduction, we make the case for giving developmental research a seat at the social
psychological table, and briefly summarize the contributions contained in this special issue. Copyright # 2010 John Wiley
& Sons, Ltd.

INTRODUCTION

This special issue focuses on developmental approaches to understanding classic intergroup phenomena such as prejudice,
stereotyping, and discrimination. Having brought this developmental focus to a social psychology journal, we begin with
some general considerations regarding such interdisciplinary–or at least intersubdisciplinary–endeavors. Social and
developmental psychology are surely close cousins, but their everyday practice is often quite independent, both because of
substantive issues related to theoretical and methodological commitments, as well as more mundane divides created by
different publishing venues and professional societies. We believe this separation to be unfortunate, and while we do not
belabor the point here (see Dunham & Olson, 2008), we would like to discuss a very general difference that may be
particularly relevant in the context of intergroup research.
Whether explicitly or implicitly, social psychologists often assume a general social learning perspective, in which the
emergence and development of prejudice and stereotypes are a direct function of the social input. On this view, society
provides and the individual acquires the locally important social categories, as well as the prevailing evaluations and
stereotypical associations linked to those categories (e.g., Devine, 1989; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). This process is,
broadly speaking, one of passive internalization.
Developmentalists have challenged this assumption on at least two major fronts. First, they object to the implied notion
of tabula rasa, of a blank slate upon which social information is inscribed. Rather, they point out that children are engaged
in an active process of learning that often involves forming knowledge structures that are quite different than those held by
adults, as a consequence of their attempt to restructure incoming information to make it fit within what they already know
and think. Prominent examples include children’s early intuitive theories of biological life, in which life seems to be
defined in terms of causal efficacy (the sun is alive because it warms us; buttons are alive because they hold up our trousers;

*Correspondence to: Yarrow Dunham, University of California, Merced, 5200 North Lake Road, Merced, CA 95343, USA.
E-mail: [email protected]
**Correspondence to: Juliane Degner, University of Amsterdam, Roeterstraat 15, 1018 WB Amsterdam, The Netherlands. E-mail: [email protected]

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

Carey, 1985; Piaget, 1927). Clearly these ideas do not come from the adults around them; what’s more, holding such a
view, children may interpret a novel fact such as that plants are also alive in a way that fits with their prior understanding,
perhaps such that the life of plants is due to their role as human sustenance. In short, children are not passive internalizers
of prevailing patterns of knowledge.
Second, the ways in which children restructure incoming knowledge often depends on the kind of knowledge in
question, that is, on the knowledge domain (Hirschfeld & Gelman, 1994). It is now clear that children bring quite different
assumptions to bear depending on what they are learning about. For example, when infants observe a human hand
repeatedly reaching for the same object, they assume that the object is the hand’s goal, and will expect the hand to continue
to pursue it even if the hand has to manoeuver in novel ways in order to reach it (e.g., to a new location or around a barrier).
However, upon seeing a metallic claw continually ‘‘reach’’ for the same object, infants form no such expectation, and
instead expect the claw to follow the same path of motion irrespective of changes in the location of the object (Woodward,
1998). Put simply, infants make different allowances for agents like hands than for artifacts like metal claws, suggesting
that what is learned depends on the sorts of things being observed. In the present context, this could be taken to suggest that
children may also have characteristic, domain-specific ways of reasoning about social entities such as social groups (a
topic taken up by Kinzler, Shutts, & Correll, 2010; Platten, Hernik, Fonagy, & Fearon, 2010).
Certainly we believe that a deeper appreciation of social psychology can benefit developmental psychology as well as
vice versa. However, our desire to place this special issue in a prominent social psychology venue was not haphazard; it is
more common for developmental psychologists to read the social psychological literature than for social psychologists to
read the developmental literature. There are legitimate reasons for this. If I, a developmental psychologist, study
stereotyping, surely I would be ill-advised not to exploit the vast findings emerging form adult-focused social
psychological research. Yet it might at first blush seem that for a social psychologist studying stereotyping, the converse
need to explore what children are doing is less acute. After all, I might insist, I am interested in adult cognition and
behavior; the developmental paths leading to this ’end state’, while perhaps interesting, are not directly relevant to the
adult endeavor. Perhaps. However, this assumption, when fully unpacked, often turns out to be more worrying than we
might have thought.
We begin by pointing out that adult knowledge does not spring into existence, fully formed, at age 18—the age at which
most research samples in social psychology begin. Rather, adult knowledge is the result of protracted developmental
processes beginning as early as infancy. Might this mundane fact imply constraints on how knowledge forms? The
problem swims into sharpest relief when we consider the study of acquisition, e.g., in the study of stereotype and prejudice
formation. Certainly much adult research has tackled this topic, yielding rich insight into how stereotypes and prejudice
form. Yet can we assume that the learning mechanisms adults employ are the same ones that a 4-year-old employs when
first realizing that, for example, there is something called ‘‘race’’ which adults use to organize social relationships? Surely
it would be presumptuous to answer this question in the affirmative absent direct investigation! After all, preschool-aged
children show pronounced differences in reasoning about intentions, traits, numbers, animals, societies, moral principles,
and so on—why not social groups as well?
What makes this more than a curiosity is the possibility that adult knowledge is in part composed of information
initially acquired by children using learning strategies that adults may no longer have or use. That is, knowledge acquired
in childhood by child-specific means may persist in some form into adulthood (see Devine, 1989, for a related suggestion
arising from within social psychology). If so, the nature of adult knowledge can only be correctly understood by
considering its natural history, its unfolding over developmental time. If so, studies of acquisition focused solely on adults
can tell us how an adult might reason about a social group they encounter for the first time in adulthood, but cannot be taken
to straightforwardly imply that this is how social knowledge about race, gender, nationality, religion, and other prominent
social categories are acquired at far earlier ages.
To sketch how a few general examples might play out, adult social cognition research has identified illusory
correlations or pseudo-contingencies (Hamilton & Gifford, 1976; Meiser & Hewstone, 2006) as possible contributors to
prejudice and stereotypes: When learning about novel groups, adults tend to establish a false correlation between the
minority status of a group and rare negative behaviors, resulting in a negatively biased evaluation of that group. The
occurrence of this bias, however, is based on specific cognitive abilities (categorization, encoding of frequency
information, estimation of base-rates, perception and recall of covariations, etc.) that might not exist in the same form in
children. For example, young children understand quantification differently before acquiring the same numbers and
counting principles that adults use (e.g., LeCorre & Carey, 2007). While some patterns of illusory correlations have been

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 563–568 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
 Introduction to the special issue 565

reported in school children (e.g., Johnston & Jacobs, 2003; Primi & Agnoli, 2002), further developmental research is
needed to fully understand if and to what degree these cognitive biases play a role in real-life prejudice formation.
A similar claim can be made regarding the influential social role theory (Eagly & Steffen, 1984), which also locates the
origins of stereotypes in cognitive biases in social information processing such as spurious correlations (Meiser &
Hewstone, 2004). Social stereotypes (such as gender stereotypes) result from the perception of a relation between a social
group membership (e.g., gender) and observed behaviors (e.g., communal vs. agentic behaviors). These behaviors are
attributed to group-based characteristics while ignoring social roles (e.g., occupation) as the mediating variable of this
relation. Although intuitively convincing, absent developmental research exploring age-related differences in the
processes related to stereotype acquisition and the role of moderating factors such as observational learning vs. explicit
parental teaching, we cannot estimate the impact of these specific learning processes on real-life stereotype formation.
We can put this in more general terms by noting that many adult models tacitly assume certain sources of input, certain
learning histories. That is, theories imply developmental predictions, and in some cases different theories imply different
developmental predictions. In these cases, development becomes less a discipline and more a method, a tool like any other
for testing theory-driven hypotheses. We illustrate with one example from our own work, the development of automatic or
implicit forms of social attitude. Many early views of implicit social cognition assumed that social attitudes are ‘‘slow-
learned’’ maps of statistical regularities acquired via protracted experience (e.g., Devine, 1989; Fazio, Sanbonmatsu,
Powell, & Kardes, 1986; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Rudman, 2004; Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000) Others have
instead emphasized the need to rapidly form evaluations of even novel stimuli, and so have insisted that at least in some
cases automatic attitudes can be created online as a stimulus is encountered (e.g., De Houwer, Hermans, & Eelen, 1998;
Duckworth, Bargh, Garcia, & Chaiken, 2002; Zajonc, 1980). These two views at least potentially make divergent
developmental predictions, the former suggesting the gradual emergence of automatic attitudes driven by consistent
experience, the latter suggesting that a very general factor like social difference might be sufficient to immediately induce
automatic attitudes. Examining the developmental course of automatic attitudes thus becomes a way to weigh in on this
debate. In some initial work in this area (e.g., Baron & Banaji, 2006; Dunham, Baron, & Banaji, 2006, 2007), we found
that automatic race attitudes as measured by the Implicit Association Test appear at adult-like magnitudes as early as age 6
(and possibly as early as age 3–4; Dunham & Banaji, 2010), and are largely stable over developmental time. This is
difficult to reconcile with slow-learning views, which would predict a gradual ‘‘tuning’’ of these attitudes as social
information is internalized, and instead suggest that merely partitioning social targets into ingroup and outgroup may be
sufficient to induce automatic preferences for the ingroup—and indeed, children as young as 5 show implicit ingroup
preference following assignment to minimal social groups (Dunham, Baron, & Carey, in press). More recently, this
perspective was further refined by research contrasting different measurements of automatic prejudice activation (Degner
& Wentura, 2010; Degner, Wentura, Gniewosz, & Noack, 2007). These studies suggest two different yet complementary
developmental components of automatic prejudice in childhood and adolescence, each following a distinct developmental
course. Category-based prejudice automatization, as measured by methods such as the IAT which focus on entire social
categories (e.g., Black vs. White) appears much earlier than exemplar-based prejudice automatization, as measured by
methods such as evaluative priming which focus on individuals who so happen to belong to one or the other social
category. Thus, exemplar-based evaluations may well follow a slow-learning model, while category-based evaluations
appear not to.
Related questions are addressed by several papers in this special issue. For example, what role do category labels play in
prejudice acquisition (Waxman, 2010)? Which intergroup experiences during childhood and adolescence influence
attitude formation and change (McGlothlin & Killen, 2010)? What is the role of more general processes related to social
reasoning (Fitzroy & Rutland, 2010) and cultural learning (Schiefer, Möllering, Daniel, Benish-Weisman, & Boehnke,
2010)? The take-away point here is that development can become a powerful way to ‘‘weigh in’’ on debates in the adult
literature, especially when specific predictions can be derived from the adult theories.
Many who seek to bridge developmental and social areas start with feet firmly planted in one field, reach across
disciplinary borders to borrow a method or an insight from their neighbor, and then retreat back to familiar territory. This
approach can yield gains, first and foremost by extending methodological or theoretical commonality, and by making
researchers in one area aware of a broader range of potentially relevant data. But in selecting articles for this special issue,
we prioritized contributions that go beyond this more limited form of cross-disciplinary incursion and that thereby strike
notes that would not have been possible from a grounding in just one discipline. There are many ways to do this, certainly
more than are represented in this volume, but we hope that the papers we selected can serve as examples of how research

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 563–568 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
566 Yarrow Dunham and Juliane Degner

informed by both areas can offer unique insights into the social and cognitive processes underlying the complex intergroup
phenomena that are our shared interest. With these considerations in mind, we now turn to a brief review of the papers
included in this volume.

CONTENTS OF THE SPECIAL ISSUE

The issue begins with two theoretical contributions focusing on the initial state or ‘‘building blocks’’ out of which mature
social cognition forms. Platten and colleagues take a very general approach, reviewing both comparative research with
primates and developmental research with infants to ask what universal learning tools or basic assumptions infants and
young children start out with (Platten et al., 2010). This approach is a classic one in cognitive development, in which the
overall project can be characterized as the need to describe the initial state, the nature of the input, and how mechanisms
present in the initial state are used to build new knowledge and perhaps even new learning mechanisms on the road to the
mature ‘‘end state’’. Platten and colleagues focus on the challenge of coalitional affiliation in environments in which cues
to coalition membership are subtle or absent. They suggest that infants are equipped with a powerful set of useful abilities,
including identifying and tracking individuals, monitoring the reactions of close others (social referencing), and extracting
valenced information (i.e., niceness or meanness) even from highly abstract visual displays composed of moving shapes.
We take Platten and colleagues to be pointing out that the rich social competencies present in adults may be built of
somewhat smaller pieces that we might first think. Kinzler and colleagues offer a review focused on social categories
(Kinzler et al., 2010). They point out that social categories are a diverse and ill-formed lot, based on quite varied features,
and ask whether any stand apart, as more important or as cognitively privileged during development. They range across
social, developmental, and evolutionary psychological terrain to argue for the cognitive primacy of three social categories,
age, gender, and most provocatively, language, while pointing out that race, perhaps the best-studied social category, is
almost surely not on the list of privileged categories.
Waxman’s contribution offers an illustrative example of classic developmental methodology, namely that of an
inductive inference task (Waxman, 2010). Indeed, cognitive developmental researchers tend to think of stereotyping in
terms of induction, of generalization from an exemplar to other exemplars thought to belong to the same category.
Waxman teaches a novel property of an individual, and then observes whom children extend the same property to, focusing
particularly on race and gender. She finds that young children have a general tendency to extend categories very broadly,
from an individual to any other person. However, if the individual is identified as belonging to a novel social category,
children’s behavior changes dramatically, such that they now restrict generalization to someone of the same gender or race.
The implications are profound: Children are taking an important cue from adult labeling practices, as if guided by the
assumption that adult labels are indicating that like-labeled entities share many other properties as well.
Drawing most directly from adult social psychology, Svirydzenka and colleagues engage with the topic of entitativity:
The extent to which a social collective is thought of as a unified and integrated group as opposed to just a loose collection of
individuals (Svirydzenka, Sani, & Bennett, 2010). They find that the properties of groups known to predict entitativity in
adults (e.g., amount of intragroup interaction, common goals, etc; Lickel et al., 2000) are also predictive in 10-year-olds,
but that some additional differences emerge. For example, children seem to emphasize more perceptually salient
properties of groups, such as the degree of interaction among group members, and are correspondingly less influenced by
more abstract and non-perceptible properties such as importance of the group to the members. Thus, children may actually
see groups in somewhat different ways, ways that could relate to stereotyping, prejudice, and related phenomenon. It
would be fascinating to see if even greater differences, including potentially even greater reliance on observable
properties, were present in still younger children.
Two papers focus on, broadly speaking, the cultural environment. McGlothlin and Killen (2010,) look at how
experiences in diverse versus non-diverse schools impacts subtle forms of race bias, in this case interpretations of
ambiguous intergroup interactions and expectations of cross-race friendship potential. They find evidence that diversity
provides a protective factor: Whereas European–American children from homogeneous, predominantly European–
American schools show race-related biases in these tasks, both African–American and European–American children in
diverse schools did not. One can read this as both a testament to the power of experience as well as a reminder that
widespread reports of race bias in young children need to be confirmed in more diverse settings. Schiefer and colleagues

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 563–568 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
 Introduction to the special issue 567

(Schiefer et al., 2010) look at culture writ large: How do broad cultural values that might be thought to relate to tolerance
affect the development of prejudice? Interestingly, they find evidence of cultural effects on outgroup derogation only in
older adolescents, suggesting that cultural effects of this broad sort may emerge surprisingly late (and perhaps indirectly
suggesting that younger children, irrespective of cultural differences, develop intergroup attitudes in quite similar ways).
Patterson, Bigler, and Swann, Jr. (2010) ask about a relatively neglected question in both social as well as
developmental psychology: What happens when social identities and individual identities clash? For example, what
happens if I think of myself as academically strong, but my group is not thought of in those terms? Using a novel groups
paradigm grounded in the real ecology of a summer-school program, they assign children to groups based on t-shirt colors,
measure individual identity related to academic and athletic pursuits, and then present children with group-relevant
information in the form of posters demonstrating that one group is highly successful academically and the other
athletically. They find that, at least in the studied age range (5–11), children are not particularly influenced by the group
messages, and rather tend to project their own individual properties to groups in a form of self-anchoring (for related adult
work, Cadinu & Rothbart, 1996; Otten & Wentura, 2001).
Files and colleagues (Files, Casey, & Oleson, 2010) employ a novel groups procedure based on Bigler and colleagues’
work (e.g., Bigler, Jones, & Lobliner, 1997), asking about the time course of these relatively minimal group preference
effects. They find that ingroup preference appears immediately following group assignment and remains equivalent in
strength several weeks later, despite increased opportunities for within group interaction. The longitudinal design
employed here is welcome and surprisingly rare in developmental intergroup research.
The richness of factors influencing the expression of intergroup attitudes is made evident in Fitzroy and Rutland’s
(2010) contribution, in which factors known to reduce the expression of bias such as public accountability and strong
norms against bias are shown to depend on a specific form of perspective taking; that is, only older children who recognize
that others might see and judge their responses were affected by public accountability and group norms. This suggests that
social influence itself depends on the child’s ability to successfully reason about the mental states of others and groups of
others, an idea ripe for expansion future work.
Thus, the papers in this volume represent a range of approaches spanning across cognitive, social, and developmental
psychology. The samples discussed range from non-human primates through infants and up to adolescents. Theoretical
perspectives have their origin in developmental and social psychology alike, with additional influences from cultural and
evolutionary approaches. Certainly this diversity is a strength; however, we would note that truly interdisciplinary research
is still somewhat rare, perhaps for the reasons we outline in our introductory comments. We hope that volumes like this
will increase interest and excitement for work at the boundaries of social and developmental psychology, and will
encourage new entrants into this exciting research arena.

REFERENCES

Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes. Evidence of race evaluation from ages 6 and 10 and
adulthood. Psychological Science, 7, 53–58.
Bigler, R. S., Jones, L. C., & Lobliner, D. B. (1997). Social categorization and the formation of intergroup attitudes in children. Child
Development, 68, 530–543.
Cadinu, M. R., & Rothbart, M. (1996). Self-anchoring and differentiation processes in the minimal group setting. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 70, 661–677.
Carey, S. (1985). Conceptual Change in Childhood. Cambridge, MA: MIT Press.
Degner, J., & Wentura, D. (2010). Automatic prejudice in childhood and early adolescence. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 98, 356–374.
Degner, J., Wentura, D., Gniewosz, B., & Noack, P. (2007). Hostility-related prejudice against Turks in adolescents: Masked affective
priming allows for a differentiation of automatic prejudice. Basic and Applied Social Psychology, 29, 245–256.
De Houwer, J., Hermans, d., & Eelen, P. (1998). Affective and identity priming with episodically associated stimuli. Cognition and
Emotion, 19, 161–174.
Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 56, 5–18.
Duckworth, K. L., Bargh, J. A., Garcia, M., & Chaiken, S. (2002). The automatic evaluation of novel stimuli. Psychological Science, 13,
513–519.
Dunham, Y., & Banaji, M. R. (2010). Invariance of intergroup bias across the lifespan. Unpublished manuscript.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 563–568 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp
568 Yarrow Dunham and Juliane Degner

Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). From American city to Japanese village: A cross-cultural investigation of implicit
race attitudes. Child Development, 77, 1268–1281.
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The person and the group: A developmental analysis of implicit consistency among
Hispanic-Americans. Self and Identity, 6, 238–255.
Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Carey, S. (in press) The consequences of ‘‘minimal’’ group affiliations in childhood. Child Development.
Dunham, Y., & Olson, K. R. (2008). The importance of origins: Why cognitive development is central to a mature understanding of
social psychology. The Open Psychology Journal, 1, 59–65.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754.
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. (1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Personality
and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238.
Files, J. S., Casey, C. M., & Oleson, K. C. (2010). Intergroup bias in children: Development, persistence. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 671–678. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.734
Fitzroy, S., & Rutland, A. (2010). Learning to control ethnic intergroup bias in childhood. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40,
679–693. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.746
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102,
4–27.
Hamilton, D. L., & Gifford, R. K. (1976). Illusory correlation in interpersonal perception: A cognitive basis of stereotypic judgments.
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 12, 392–407.
Hirschfeld, L. A. & Gelman S. A. (Eds.). (1994). Mapping the Mind: Domain Specificity in Cognition and Culture. New York:
Cambridge University Press.
Johnston, K. E., & Jacobs, J. E. (2003). Children’s illusory correlations: The role of attentional bias in group impression formation.
Journal of cognition and development, 4, 129–160.
Kinzler, K. D., Schutts, K., & Correll, J. (2010). Priorities in social categories. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 581–592.
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.739
LeCorre, M., & Carey, S. (2007). One, two, three, four, nothing more: An investigation of the conceptual sources of the verbal counting
principles. Cognition, 105, 395–438.
Lickel, B., Hamilton, D. L., Wieczorkowska, G., Lewis, A., Sherman, S., & Uhles, A. N. (2000). Varieties of groups and the perception
of group entitativity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 78, 223–246.
McGlothlin, H., & Killen, M. (2010). How social experience is related to children’s intergroup attitudes. European Journal of Social
Psychology, 40, 625–634. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.733
Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2004). Cognitive processes in stereotype formation: The role of correct contingency learning for biased
judgments. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 599–614.
Meiser, T., & Hewstone, M. (2006). Illusory and spurious correlations: Distinct phenomena or joint outcomes of exemplar-based
category learning? European Journal of Social Psychology, 36, 315–336.
Otten, S., & Wentura, D. (2001). Self-anchoring and ingroup favoritism: An individual-profiles analysis. Journal of Experimental Social
Psychology, 37, 525–532.
Patterson, M. M., Bigler, R., & Swann, Jr., W. B. (2010). When personal identities confirm versus conflict with group identities:
Evidence from an intergroup paradigm. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 652–670. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.747
Piaget, J. (1927). The child’s conception of physical causality. New Jersey: Humanities Press.
Platten, L., Hernik, M., Fonagy, P., & Fearon, R. P. (2010). Knowing who likes who: The early developmental basis of coalitional
understanding. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 569–580. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.752
Primi, C., & Agnoli, F. (2002). Children correlate infrequent behaviors with minority groups: A case of illusory correlation. Cognitive
Development, 17, 1105–1131.
Rudman, L. A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13, 79–82.
Schiefer, D., Möllering, A., Daniel, E., Benish-Weisman, M., & Boehnke, K. (2010). Cultural values and outgroup perception: A cross-
cultural comparison of early and late adolescents. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 635–651. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.745
Svirydzenka, N., Sani, F., & Bennett, M. (2010). Group entitativity and its perceptual antecedents in varieties of groups: A
developmental perspective. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 611–624. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.761
Waxman, S. R. (2010). Names will never hurt me? Naming and the development of racial and gender categories in preschool-aged
children. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 593–610. DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.732
Wilson, T. D., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. Y. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126.
Woodward, A. L. (1998). Infants selectively encode the goal object of an actor’s reach. Cognition, 69, 1–34.
Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175.

Copyright # 2010 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 40, 563–568 (2010)
DOI: 10.1002/ejsp