Introduction
Since their first conceptualization, stereotypes demonstrated to be key determinants of social cognition, thus representing the semantic associations and evaluation people hold on social groups. Central to their understanding, is the key concept of “automatic” activation of stereotypes, reflecting an inherent resistance to change and an invariance across contexts. This automaticity, defined as the rapid, parallel, and largely uncontrollable nature of these processes, contrasts with the slower, conscious and effortful nature of controlled processing (Kahneman, 2013). Yet, data from several studies suggest that motivated individuals can modify these processes within different situation. For instance, it has been shown that individual with threatened self-images may activate negative stereotypes to strengthen their self-esteem, or to discredit evaluators they dislike, whilst the opposite can happen if it benefits their self-image (Sinclair & Kunda, 1999; Spencer et al., 1998; Spencer et al., 2016). Stereotypes are driven by several motives, such as the needs for belonging, understanding, self-enhancing, trusting and controlling. Hence, automatic attitudes are not as rigid as formerly thought and can be quite responsive to the perceiver’s situational motives.
Stereotypes function as expectations and shape information processing: easily processing stereotype-consistent information and inhibiting inconsistent information through the directing of attention (Hamilton et al., 1990; Sherman et al., 2005). A much-debated question is whether attention plays a crucial role in the activation and inhibition of stereotypes: when perceivers are unable or unwilling to pay attention to a target, stereotyping becomes more likely, leading to biased judgment and behaviours. However, it also suggested that a lack of attention can reduce automatic stereotypes, thereby decreasing the likelihood of stereotypic judgments (Fiske & Neuberg, 1990; Fiske & Taylor, 2021; Gilbert et al., 1998).
Existing research recognizes the critical role played by the diverse strategies (e.g., suppressing stereotypes, expecting counter-stereotypic events) in significantly affecting the automatic activation of stereotypes, and their capability in leading to longer-term changes (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001; Kawakami et al., 2000). Counter-stereotypes can produce systematic responses even in the presence of high cognitive constraints that compete with automatically activated stereotypes (Blair & Banaji, 1996; Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Macrae et al., 1997; Metcalfe, 1998). It has been argued that the conscious and intentional creation of mental representation (i.e., mental imagery) can influence cognitive, emotional and behavioural responses (Dadds et al., 1997; Kosslyn, 2005; Taylor & Schneider, 1989). Mental imagery has been effective in altering judgments and behaviours across various domains, suggesting its potential for modifying implicit stereotypes. Implicit and explicit attitudes are often associated, due to shared roots in personal and cultural experiences. However, the automatic activation of stereotypes can occur independently of personal beliefs, leading to potential conflicts between implicit responses and consciously held egalitarian views (Devine, 1989). Recent research has further emphasized the context-dependent and dynamic nature of implicit bias, suggesting that such biases are not fixed traits but are constructed in response to situational and cultural inputs (Forscher et al., 2019; Payne et al., 2017). These findings challenge earlier assumptions of stability and highlight the importance of considering both cognitive and environmental factors in understanding stereotype activation and change.
Understanding the dynamics of stereotypes requires an integrated approach that considers both cognitive processes and cultural influences. This essay will explore the mechanisms by which automatic stereotypes might be modified, emphasizing the roles of decision-making, emotion regulation, motivation, and cultural context, considering Clark (2012); Clark (2013); Clark (2018) and Hinton (2017) contributes through the “predictive brain” and the “culture in mind” perspectives. By doing so, the essay not only synthesises existing theoretical perspectives but also proposes a novel interpretative lens that links cognitive mechanisms and cultural dynamics to explain both the persistence of stereotypes and the conditions under which they can be effectively modified.
“Predictive brain” and “culture in mind” perspectives
In the study of the cognitive aspects related to the processes of constructing and maintaining implicit stereotypes, two significant perspectives can contribute to the understanding of how the mind operates and processes information within cultural contexts: the “Predictive Brain” framework proposed by Clark (2013) and the “Culture in Mind” concept, discussed by Hinton (2017). These two approaches offer valuable insights and perspectives into the functioning of stereotypes by emphasizing their cognitive rather than social aspects and help understand how stereotypes are formed, maintained and potentially changed within individuals and across societies.
According to the “Predictive Brain” (Clark, 2012; Clark, 2013), human brain constantly makes predictions about the world, through Bayesian principles, based on prior experiences and learned associations. This model suggests that brain functions as a probabilistic machine, continually updating beliefs and expectations to minimize errors in perception and decision-making. Hence, brain bases its prediction on the likelihood of events occurring as observed in the real world, not necessarily on what is socially desirable or morally correct. This modular view of the brain and cognitive functions emphasizes the role of inference in perception, suggesting that what we perceive is strongly influenced by our prior beliefs and expectations. From this perspective, it can be explained how preconceived notions about social groups can influence perception and behaviour: stereotypes, as predictive models, lead to expectations and interpretations about certain groups that can perpetuate discriminatory behaviour. Since the brain’s predictive mechanism operates largely outside of awareness, these cognitive biases are not always conscious. Therefore, even when individuals consciously reject certain stereotypes, these may persist at an implicit level, since the brain continues to rely on those learned associations that have proven to be statistically common in their social context. Considering this perspective, implicit stereotypes cannot be considered just cognitive biases or errors in judgment, but, rather, they are the natural outcome of the brain’s effort to predict social interactions based on the most common and consistent information in encounters. Therefore, stereotypes form because the brain unconsciously identifies patterns from the social world and interprets these patterns as reliable predictors of behaviour o traits associated to a certain group. This learning process is often unconscious and driven by the brain’s need to make sense of the social environment efficiently.
The “Culture in mind” framework (Hinton, 2017), emphasizes the role that culture has in shaping cognitive processes, including the development and perpetuation of stereotypes. Culture acts as a source of shared knowledge and common understandings that influence how individuals think, feel and behave. In this view, implicit stereotypes should be understood as manifestation of broader cultural patterns and norms that are internalized by members of a cultural group. This concept suggests that stereotypes are culturally constructed and maintained through communication, socialization, and media, embedded in the narratives, symbols and practices of a society and transmitted through generations as part of the cultural knowledge that individuals acquire. Therefore, implicit stereotypes are constantly being reshaped by changes in cultural norms, media representations and social interaction, as they are the cultural product of values, beliefs and power dynamics of the society in which they arise. Hence, it is not possible to change implicit stereotypes without addressing the cultural context that sustains them.
The notion of “culture in mind” suggests that cultural factors are deeply embedded in cognitive processes. Through an enactivist perspective, Hinton argues that there is an interpenetration between culture and cognition that makes them inseparably intertwined (Hipolito & Kirchhoff, 2019; Hutto et al., 2020; Safron et al., 2022). To look at stereotypes from this perspective is to recognize the cultural narratives and social norms that form and shape the cognitive schemas that individuals use to interpret the world. Stereotypes thus become cultural constructions of mental representations that are perpetuated through social interactions and the media. The prevalence of stereotypes can be traced back to historical and cultural narratives that have been reinforced over time and understanding this cultural permeation means recognizing that stereotypes are not just individual cognitive errors, but part of a broader cultural phenomenon. This recognition is fundamental to addressing the systemic nature of stereotypes and their impact on social equality.
When considering these two perspectives together, it becomes evident that stereotypes are the product of both cultural influences and predictive cognitive processes. Taken together, these theories demonstrate how difficult it is to deal with stereotypes because it requires altering social constructs as well as internal mental mechanisms. However, combining “Predictive Brain” and “Culture in Mind” frameworks may offer a more comprehensive understanding of how stereotype function: on one hand we find the cognitive mechanisms by which stereotypes are learned and maintained at an unconscious level, on the other hand, we remember to emphasize the role of cultural and social factors in shaping these cognitive processes. Culture is not monolithic or fixed, but rather a dynamic interaction between individuals and their cultural context. People actively construct their social world and media environment, which means that implicit stereotypes are constantly being updated to reflect both stable cultural patterns and evolving social norms. This perspective highlights the importance of consistent exposure to counter-stereotypical information in undermining negative implicit stereotypes. Recent developments in predictive processing approaches further emphasize the role of socio-cultural environments in shaping cognitive priors, suggesting that perception and social cognition emerge from continuous interactions between brain, body, and environment (Durt et al., 2017; Frosch et al., 2022).
The role of decision-making in stereotypes
Social psychology extensively studied stereotypes as simplified generalizations about groups. One of the most well-known tools for assessing implicit stereotypical associations is the Implicit Associations Test (IAT); this instrument has demonstrated that implicit stereotypical associations can influence social judgment even among those who consciously aim to avoid such biases, raising significant questions about both the control over and the individual’s responsibility for implicit stereotype effects that they consciously reject. The concept of implicit stereotypical association is underpinned by two theoretical constructs: associative networks in semantic memory and automatic activation. Kahneman’s (2013) dual-system theory assumes that conscious processing is slow, effortful, and requires attentional resources and motivation, while the automatic processing is rapid, operates outside of conscious awareness and involves parallel processing. Stereotypical associations, which are learned from culture and socialization, are automatically activated upon encountering a member of the stereotyped group, thus activating the automatic processing which can influence the perceivers’ thoughts and behaviour, often bypassing conscious intentions to inhibit prejudicial responses. This mechanism is facilitated by the implementation of heuristics, simple decision-making principles based on recognition or familiarity. Several studies demonstrated the efficacy of heuristics across various fields, such as economics, emergency medicine and consumer (Gigerenzer & Gaissmaier, 2011) behaviour; working by exploiting prior probabilities and, consequently, reducing the cognitive load required for each new decision. This concept has been extended to social perception by Clark (2013) arguing that the “Predictive Brain” employs similar mechanisms in processing social information. This framework has been further applied by Otten et al. (2017) to social knowledge, suggesting that perception, including social perception, involves the application of learned probabilities to new experiences.
Despite the widespread use of the IAT and the focus on implicit stereotypes as a dominant framework in contemporary psychology (Fiske & Taylor, 2021), the predictive validity of this instrument in revealing unconscious biases has been challenged (Oswald et al., 2013). In fact, stereotypes, rather than indicating unconscious cognitive biases, seems to reflect associations learned from cultural information. These association, according to the predictive brain model, are probabilistically detected and a product of the normal brain functioning in life. Hence, implicit stereotypes evolve as cultural norms evolve, though at a slow pace for some associations. The predictive brain model emphasizes the need to integrate cognitive research with cultural dynamics to truly and fully understand the nature of implicit stereotypes. More recent models of implicit cognition have also questioned the stability and predictive validity of implicit measures, proposing that implicit evaluations emerge from multiple interacting processes that are sensitive to contextual variation (Gawronski, 2019). This perspective aligns with the predictive brain framework, reinforcing the idea that social judgments are constructed dynamically rather than retrieved as fixed associations.
According to Devine (1989), since stereotypes are culturally shared, they can be automatically triggered; therefore, those with positive attitudes toward a social group may also trigger negative stereotypes if they encounter a member of that group. This is also supported by the evidence that implicit attitudes, as a possible result of internalized explicit attitudes (Brauer et al., 2000), are influenced by individual and cultural experiences (Dovidio et al., 1997). Decision-making processes then become implicit, triggered by the strongest learned implicit stereotypical associations. Research on cognitive neuroscience supports the existence of early control mechanisms that may operate without conscious awareness (Berns et al., 1997; Nieuwenhuis et al., 2001). Two neural systems are involved and work in concert to produce intended behaviour despite the conflicting tendencies: a conflict-detection system, associated with the anterior cingulate cortex, and a regulatory system for response regulation, linked to the prefrontal cortex (Botvinick et al., 2001; Gehring & Fencsik, 2001; MacDonald et al., 2000).
The role of emotion regulation in stereotypes
Among the most interesting and least studied cognitive aspects in the formation and expression of stereotypes is the role of emotional regulation, i.e. the process of individual perception, modification and experience of emotions. Emotions, as primary variables, can play an important role in controlling the expression of implicit stereotypes. However, most research to date has focused on the effects stereotypes have on mood states. Several studies focused on how emotional regulation strategies change the effects of stereotypes on stigmatised groups. Rumination appears to be a significant mediator between stigma-related stress and psychological distress that increases as rumination increases, indicating a causal role (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009). It would also appear that emotional suppression might be a strategy that leads to more positive emotions being experienced in people with high levels of prejudice than the non-use of emotional regulation strategies and leads to an increased desire for intergroup contact, whereas this is not the case in people with low levels of prejudice (Burns et al., 2008).
Why then focus on the role of emotional regulation? Cognitive performance - including decision-making, motivation and thinking, which regulate the implicit application of stereotypes - is influenced by the levels of arousal experienced (Johns et al., 2008). According to studies (Hatzenbuehler et al., 2009; Johns et al., 2008), optimal cognitive performance occurs at moderate levels of arousal, whereas high emotional arousal may enhance as much as impair the cognitive processes underlying implicit stereotype use. Current research suggests that while emotions may reinforce the cognitive persistence of stereotypes, the use of emotion regulation strategies may have the potential to moderate or even counteract this influence. From a predictive processing perspective (Clark, 2013), emotion regulation can be interpreted as a hierarchical process of minimising prediction errors, regarding interoceptive and social signals. Emotions serve as feedback indicators of mismatches between expected and actual sensory states, and regulation strategies function as top-down predictions aimed at restoring equilibrium. Considering this framework, stereotypes my persist because they provide stable and low-cost predictions about social interactions, reducing uncertainty. However, we should consider that engaging in emotion regulation strategies (reappraisal or perspective-taking) allows to generate new predictive models that reinterpret incoming social information; meaning that, potentially, we could reduce the precision of stereotypical assumptions. Emotion regulation is not merely reactive, but predictive: it anticipates emotional and social states, updating the individual’s internal model of group interactions. It becomes crucial to examine, again, the effect of culture on cognitive processes. Emotional regulation varies depending on the culture of reference and, in this sense, may influence the prevalence and expression of stereotypes, especially when modulated by specific emotional responses.
The role of motivation in stereotypes
Implicit stereotypes allow the categorisation of the social world around us into groups oriented by individual attitudes and beliefs (Allidina & Cunningham, 2023). Categorisation is a process influenced by different needs, such as the needs for sharing and belonging, which can direct attention to specific dimensions and categories. Motivation is the cognitive process that seeks to respond to individual needs and understanding its role in the early stages of social categorisation allows us to highlight how and when stereotypes begin to form. Motivational processes can shift the attention of individuals to specific dimensions of social categories, such as ethnicity, gender, age. For example, when individuals are motivated by the need to obtain benefits, they try to avoid those social groups perceived as threats to their resources or interests (Allidina et al., 2024; Allidina & Cunningham, 2023). Motivation varies among individuals and influences how information is processed. The application of cognitive shortcuts as stereotypes is, therefore, an active process, also influenced by motivational factors, e.g. through the selection of stereotypes that support one’s initial attitudes and the inhibition of stereotypes that interfere with that impression. Since motivation can influence the cognitive processing of individuals, leading to biases and distortions in their perceptions of social categories (Kunda, 1990), it is crucial to emphasise the ways in which this influence occurs at the attentional level.
Motivation also plays a central role in responding to the needs of belonging, especially when put in relation to Turner et al.’ (1979) social identity theory. Belonging to a group leads individuals to experience higher self-esteem and motivates them to maintain or improve the group’s status and prestige. To achieve this, they will use outgroup and ingroup differentiation strategies, facilitating the creation and use of stereotypes. Consequently, motivation also influences how individuals interact with the ingroup and outgroup. Keeping one’s group status high can lead to the enactment of behaviours that perpetuate intergroup differences and inequalities (Corenblum & Stephan, 2001; Goodwin et al., 1998).
Although motivation plays a significant role in stereotype formation, the analysis presented so far shows that it is also affected by other variables, such as cultural and social norms and cognitive biases; therefore, motivation as a cognitive process underlying stereotype formation and maintenance cannot be separated from an understanding of the influence of culture. Considering the predictive brain framework, motivation operates as an anticipatory mechanism, that allocates precision to certain predictions over others (Clark, 2018). Motivational states signal which outcomes are most relevant to the organism, enhancing the precision weighting of predictions that reduce uncertainty about goal-relevant stimuli. This could mean that motivation biases the inferential process toward expectations, that align with social outcomes (such as maintaining in-group coherence or achieving social approval). Therefore, motivational drives can sustain the stereotypical assumptions, if they serve to minimise social prediction errors, even when conscious endorsement is missing. On the contrary, when motivational goals shift, they can recalibrate predictive hierarchies, leading to a gradual attenuation of pre-existing prejudices and promoting more flexible social inference.
Influence of culture
The pervasive impact of culture on stereotypes is a crucial aspect that has been consistently overshadowed by the prevailing focus on cognitive biases within individuals. Stereotypes, however, are shaped by the social environments in which individuals live, and conversely, shape the cultural contexts in which they are embedded. Stereotypes, in fact, are more malleable than early theories suggested (Chaiken & Trope, 1999; Devine, 1989; Fazio et al., 1995) and respond to the current inputs, including thoughts and social context, of the perceiver, not limited to simple, well-learned associations. Recent empirical work further supports this view by showing that stereotypes can change over time in response to shifts in social norms and institutional practices (Nelson & Olson, 2024; Roberts & Rizzo, 2021). These findings reinforce the understanding of stereotypes as evolving cultural constructs rather than static cognitive representations. Following this perspective, stereotypes are forms of cultural knowledge, beliefs and shared assumptions - which individuals acquire through experiences in a specific cultural context. In his pioneer studies on stereotypes and prejudices, Allport (1985) already observed that these “manifestly come from somewhere”. The same concept was also explained by Lippmann (1957), who argued that it is culture, not the individual, that creates stereotypes, highlighting their cultural origins (Hinton, 2017).
It is interesting to consider which stereotypical associations are, at the cultural level, most frequently explored and, more broadly, most remembered. Associations made about an artist, a professor, an engineer may be seen as prejudices, but there is little psychological research that challenges them. This is mainly because research on stereotypes focuses on their socio-cultural and political implications. Therefore, we find a lot of research on stereotypes and specific topics such as gender, ethnicity, age, sexuality and disability. Implicit evaluations, which are manifested through behaviour in everyday life, reflect the deep-rooted cultural structures. For instance, in Western culture, there are expectations of belonging to social classes based on ethnicity and gender (Bjornsdottir et al., 2024). Furthermore, the image of migrant and refugee populations is often associated with low-skilled people from non-Western countries (Olier & Spadavecchia, 2022), largely because skilled migrants are underrepresented in Western media. Stereotypical representations of ethnicity and gender arise from narratives that have been perpetuated, varying and evolving over time, by social systems of inequality; fortunately, culture is something that can actively change through the construction of the social world and the media environment (Burr, 2015) and in this sense, conscious beliefs and values can contradict implicit biases. The “Predictive Brain” model helps explain why stereotypes persist even when consciously rejected. To predict social interactions, the brain relies on the most accessible information, which is often stereotypes; therefore, even if individuals have egalitarian beliefs, prevailing stereotypes can affect their implicit judgments (Fiske & Taylor, 2021). Stereotypes are also affected by culture in their communication. Previous research has shown that information consistent with stereotypes tends to be emphasized and transmitted, while information inconsistent with stereotypes, despite capturing attention, is less likely to be transmitted. This process causes stories to become more stereotypical and culturally consistent with each repetition, reinforcing the stereotype within the social group (Stangor & Crandall, 2013; Yeung & Kashima, 2010).
As already anticipated, however, the process of influence between stereotypes and culture is reciprocal. When the stereotype is established within a culture, certain behaviours and attitudes can be perpetuated among the members of different groups. An interesting example comes from the analysis of Qu (2023) who highlighted how the stereotype of the rebellious and irresponsible adolescent present in Western cultures can influence the expectations and behaviour of adults towards adolescents, which influences the development and behaviour of adolescents, reinforcing the pre-existing stereotype. Again, taking up the work of Olier and Spadavecchia (2022), the culture that sees Western whites moving abroad as “global citizens”, qualified people or professionals, as “expats” while “non-white” people, regardless of their qualifications or professions, are identified as “immigrants”, leading to different legal and social treatment (Kunz, 2016; Leinonen, 2012). Not only the historical roots of discrimination, then, but also the media play a fundamental role in modifying and reflecting cultural norms and stereotypes. From the differences between “immigrants” and “expats”, but also in the cultural influences given by dressing or hair that are “stylish” if worn by white people but “unprofessional” by BIPOC (Black, Indigenous and People of Colour) (Allidina et al., 2024).
Implications for reducing inequalities
The integration of cognitive and cultural perspectives on implicit stereotypes offers a framework for identifying effective strategies to reduce inequalities across multiple domains. If stereotypes are understood as predictive processes shaped by culturally acquired priors, interventions must operate at both the individual and structural levels. Specifically, reducing inequalities requires not only modifying individual cognitive mechanisms, such as attention, motivation, and emotion regulation, but also transforming the cultural environments that continuously reinforce stereotypical associations. In educational contexts, stereotypes influence expectations, evaluation processes, and student outcomes through predictive mechanisms that guide perception and interpretation. Teachers’ expectations, often shaped by culturally embedded stereotypes, can reinforce inequalities by affecting students’ performance and self-perception. This mechanism is consistent with evidence on stereotype threat, which shows how culturally embedded expectations can negatively affect the performance of individuals from stereotyped groups (Steele, 1997). From this perspective, interventions should focus on systematically updating predictive models through sustained exposure to counter-stereotypical information and inclusive representations. Additionally, promoting metacognitive skills in both educators and students may help individuals recognize how automatic expectations influence judgments, thereby increasing awareness and reducing the uncritical application of stereotypes. These approaches align with the need to modify both cognitive processes and the cultural narratives embedded in educational systems. Interventions designed to address these mechanisms, particularly those targeting students’ beliefs and expectations, have been shown to produce scalable and lasting improvements in educational outcomes (Yeager & Walton, 2011). In occupational settings, implicit stereotypes can affect recruitment, evaluation, and decision-making processes, particularly under conditions of time pressure and cognitive load, where reliance on heuristics increases. Empirical evidence has consistently shown that such biases can influence hiring decisions, even when qualifications are identical, reflecting the impact of implicit associations on evaluative judgments (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004). Understanding stereotypes as products of predictive and motivational processes highlights the importance of reducing reliance on automatic judgments through structured decision-making procedures. Behavioural design approaches further suggest that modifying decision environments, for instance through anonymization or standardized evaluation criteria, can significantly reduce the influence of bias in organizational settings (Bohnet, 2018). Interventions such as standardized evaluation criteria, anonymized application processes, and accountability mechanisms can mitigate the influence of implicit biases. Furthermore, addressing the motivational and emotional dimensions of decision-making, for instance through training in emotion regulation and bias awareness, may reduce the likelihood that stereotypes are selectively activated to serve individual or group interests. At the societal level, stereotypes are maintained and transmitted through cultural narratives, media representations, and social communication processes. From a “culture in mind” perspective, interventions must therefore target the broader socio-cultural environment that shapes and reinforces shared knowledge structures. Increasing the visibility of diverse and counter-stereotypical representations in media and public discourse can contribute to reshaping the statistical regularities on which predictive processes rely. Exposure to counter-stereotypical exemplars has been shown to reduce implicit bias by reshaping the associative structures underlying social perception (Dasgupta, 2013). Over time, this may lead to changes in implicit expectations by altering the cultural priors that guide social perception. Importantly, such changes require coordinated efforts across institutions, media systems, and policy frameworks to ensure that alternative representations are not episodic but become part of stable cultural knowledge. At the same time, large-scale social interventions, including media and community-based programs, have demonstrated potential to shift social norms and reduce prejudice at a broader societal level (Paluck & Green, 2009). Overall, these considerations suggest that reducing inequalities requires interventions that operate simultaneously at multiple levels, targeting cognitive mechanisms, motivational processes, and cultural structures. Isolated strategies focusing exclusively on individual attitudes are unlikely to produce lasting change, as they do not address the broader systems in which stereotypes are embedded (Forscher et al., 2019). By linking predictive cognitive processes with cultural dynamics, the present framework highlights the need for integrated and sustained approaches capable of reshaping both individual cognition and the social environment in which it develops.
Conclusion and future perspectives
The implications outlined above further demonstrate how an integrated cognitive and cultural perspective can inform more effective strategies to address persistent inequalities across domains. Considering the variables examined so far and pointing out that they are only a part of human functioning and the complex relationships that can contribute to the creation and maintenance of stereotypes, it becomes clear that there is a need to integrate the theoretical approaches most used to study and investigate stereotypes from a perspective that is beyond the consideration of culture or the underlying cognitive processes alone.
Thinking of stereotypes solely as bias risks erasing the entire cultural aspect that differentiates stereotypes between different groups. At the same time, however, considering only the cultural approach risks leading to an underestimation of human cognitive functioning, which makes implicit stereotypes difficult to modify and eradicate. There is no doubt that cognitive processes play an important role in the persistence of stereotypes: it is this functioning that unites human beings and makes biases universal.
Integrating cognitive and cultural approaches may prove to be the best way to understand how their connection influences the establishment of stereotypes. From this integrated perspective, important implications emerge for reducing inequalities and promoting equity across different domains. If implicit stereotypes are understood as predictive and culturally embedded processes, interventions should aim not only at correcting individual biases but at systematically reshaping the informational and cultural environments that sustain them. In educational contexts, this implies fostering sustained exposure to counter-stereotypical representations and promoting metacognitive awareness of how expectations guide perception and learning processes. In occupational settings, it suggests the need for structured decision-making procedures that reduce reliance on heuristic processing, alongside interventions that address motivational and emotional drivers of biased judgments. At the societal level, it highlights the importance of transforming cultural narratives and media representations that reinforce stereotypical associations, recognising their role in continuously updating the “priors” on which social perception is based. Crucially, this perspective underscores that effective change requires coordinated action across cognitive, institutional, and cultural levels. Isolated interventions targeting only individual attitudes are unlikely to produce long-term effects unless they are embedded within broader structural and cultural transformations. By explicitly linking cognitive mechanisms with cultural dynamics, this framework provides a more comprehensive basis for designing interventions aimed at reducing systemic inequalities. The use of interdisciplinary perspectives that combine both cognitive science and social psychology makes it possible to explore the complexity in stereotype formation and change. Especially in a rapidly changing society such as the one in which we currently live, which sees the use of artificial intelligence and machine learning systems as tools that the general population increasingly turns to for advice or to solve problems, analysing, as numerous studies are already doing, the ways in which cognitive and cultural biases influence programming languages can be a first way of understanding not only the cultural stereotypes present in our culture but also ways of tracking and understanding stereotype dynamics in different cultures and social groups (Ahn et al., 2022; Craiut & Iancu, 2022). Integrating the study of psychology with computer science could allow the analysis of different perspectives, the creation and collection of new data that can capture a more accurate picture of the reality, including through longitudinal studies that analyse its evolution over the years.
A further important focus concerns the analysis of the cultural groups these studies address. Research to date has focused more on race, gender and sexual orientation, trying as much as possible to take an intersectional approach. However, the increasing focus on forms of discrimination within the general population, and not only within the scientific community, opens the door to an increasing need for integration and requires ever greater complexity for an effective understanding of the social context in which we live. These changes call for the scientific community to be ready to question its own biases but above all to seek new insights and new perspectives even within what is already known, highlighting results that are not significant or that go in different directions from those expected, to open new insights into the underlying reasons.
Ethics and consent
Ethical approval and consent were not required.
Citation diversity statement
Following the work from Zurn et al. (2020), to proactively consider choosing references that reflect the diversity of the field in thought, form of contribution, gender, race, ethnicity, and other factors, I used databases that store the probability of a first name being carried by a woman and the probability of a first and last name being carried by an author of colour. As per gender diversity, by this measure and excluding self-citations to the first and last authors of our current paper), this paper contains 24.07% woman (first)/woman (last), 11.11% man/woman, 14.81% woman/man, and 50.0% man/man. This method is limited in that a) names, pronouns, and social media profiles used to construct the databases may not, in every case, be indicative of gender identity and b) it cannot account for intersex, non-binary, or transgender people. As per ethnicity, by this measure (and excluding self-citations), this paper contains 5.15% author of colour (first)/author of colour (last), 13.28% white author/author of colour, 14.77% author of colour/white author, and 66.80% white author/white author. This method is limited in that a) names and Florida Voter Data to make the predictions may not be indicative of racial/ethnic identity, and b) it cannot account for Indigenous and mixed-race authors, or those who may face differential biases due to the ambiguous racialization or ethnicization of their names.
Data availability
The conceptualization and writing of the present essay did not involve the use of datasets.
Additional information
DeepL translate (https://www.deepl.com/en/translator) was used to check for English-grammar and for help in English translation. Even if this is not a Generative AI tool, this translator is LLM based. The author takes full responsibility for the content, interpretation, and final wording of the text.
References
- Ahn J, Kim J, Sung Y:The effect of gender stereotypes on Artificial Intelligence recommendations.
J Bus Res.
2022; 141: 50–59. Publisher Full Text
- Allidina S, Cunningham WA: Motivated categories: social structures shape the construction of social categories through attentional mechanisms.
Pers Soc Psychol Rev.
2023;27(4): 393–413. Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Allidina S, Long EU, Baoween W, et al.:Decoupling the conflicting evaluative meanings in automatically activated race-based associations.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull.
2024; 50(7): 987–1005. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Allport GW: The nature of prejudice. (Nachdr.). Addison-Wesley,1985.
- Berns GS, Cohen JD, Mintun MA:Brain regions responsive to novelty in the absence of awareness.
Science.
1997; 276(5316): 1272–1275. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Bertrand M, Mullainathan S:Are Emily and Greg More Employable Than Lakisha and Jamal? A Field Experiment on Labor Market Discrimination.
Am Econ Rev.
2004; 94(4): 991–1013. Publisher Full Text
- Bjornsdottir RT, Hensel LB, Zhan J, et al.:Social class perception is driven by stereotype-related facial features.
J Exp Psychol Gen.
2024; 153(3): 742–753. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Blair IV, Banaji M:Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1996; 70(6): 1142–1163. Publisher Full Text
- Bohnet I:2018;
What works: Gender equality by design.
First Harvard University Press paperback ed:The Belknap Press of Harvard University Press.
- Botvinick MM, Braver TS, Barch DM, et al.:Conflict monitoring and cognitive control.
Psychol Rev.
2001; 108(3): 624–652. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Brauer M, Wasel W, Niedenthal P:Implicit and explicit components of prejudice.
Rev Gen Psychol.
2000; 4(1): 79–101. Publisher Full Text
- Burns KC, Isbell LM, Tyler JM:Suppressing emotions toward stereotyped targets: the impact on willingness to engage in contact.
Soc Cogn.
2008; 26(3): 276–287. Publisher Full Text
- Burr V:2015;
Social constructionism.
3rd ed:Routledge. Publisher Full Text
- Chaiken S, Trope Y: Dual-process theories in social psychology.Guilford Press, (A c. Di),1999. Reference Source
- Clark A:Dreaming the whole cat: generative models, predictive processing, and the enactivist conception of perceptual experience.
Mind.
2012; 121(483): 753–771. Publisher Full Text
- Clark A:Whatever next? Predictive brains, situated agents, and the future of cognitive science.
Behav Brain Sci.
2013; 36(3): 181–204. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Clark A: Explorer perceiving as predicting. In: Stokes D, Matthen M, Biggs S (eds):
Perception and its modalities
.Oxford University Press, New York, 2018; 23–43.
Reference Source
- Corenblum B, Stephan WG:White fears and native apprehensions: an integrated threat theory approach to intergroup attitudes.
Can J Behav Sci.
2001; 33(4): 251–268. Publisher Full Text
- Craiut MV, Iancu IR:Is technology gender neutral? A systematic literature review on gender stereotypes attached to Artificial Intelligence.
Hum Technol.
2022; 18(3): 297–315. Publisher Full Text
- Dadds MR, Bovbjerg DH, Redd WH, et al.:Imagery in human classical conditioning.
Psychol Bull.
1997; 122(1): 89–103. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Dasgupta N (2013). Implicit Attitudes and Beliefs Adapt to Situations. In
Advances in Experimental Social Psychology.
(Vol. 47. , pp. 233–279). Elsevier. Publisher Full Text
- Dasgupta N, Greenwald AG:On the malleability of automatic attitudes: combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
2001; 81(5): 800–814. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Devine P:Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled components.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1989; 56: 5–18. Publisher Full Text
- Dovidio JF, Kawakami K, Johnson C, et al.:On the nature of prejudice: automatic and controlled processes.
J Exp Soc Psychol.
1997; 33(5): 510–540. Publisher Full Text
- Durt C, Fuchs T, Tewes C (A c. Di). Embodiment and Enactment in Cultural Psychiatry. In
Embodiment, Enaction, and Culture.
2017. The MIT Press. Publisher Full Text
- Fazio RH, Jackson JR, Dunton BC, et al.:Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: a bona fide pipeline?
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1995; 69(6): 1013–1027. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Fiske ST, Neuberg SL: A continuum of impression formation, from category-based to individuating processes: influences of information and motivation on attention and interpretation. In:
Adv Exp Soc Psychol.
Elsevier,1990;23. : 1–74. Publisher Full Text
- Fiske ST, Taylor SE:2021;
Social cognition: from brains to culture.
Fourth ed:SAGE Publications Ltd. Reference Source
- Forscher PS, Lai CK, Axt JR, et al.:A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
2019; 117(3): 522–559. Publisher Full Text
- Frosch IR, Mittal VA, D’Mello AM:Cerebellar Contributions to Social Cognition in ASD: A Predictive Processing Framework.
Front Integr Neurosci.
2022; 16: 810425. Publisher Full Text
- Gawronski B:Six Lessons for a Cogent Science of Implicit Bias and Its Criticism.
Perspect Psychol Sci.
2019; 14(4): 574–595. Publisher Full Text
- Gehring WJ, Fencsik DE:Functions of the medial frontal cortex in the processing of conflict and errors.
J Neurosci.
2001; 21(23): 9430–9437. Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Gigerenzer G, Gaissmaier W:Heuristic decision making.
Annu Rev Psychol.
2011; 62(1): 451–482. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Gilbert DT, Fiske ST, Lindzey G:1998;
The handbook of social psychology.
:Oxford university press.
- Gilbert DT, Hixon JG:The trouble of thinking: activation and application of stereotypic beliefs.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1991; 60(4): 509–517. Publisher Full Text
- Goodwin SA, Operario D, Fiske ST:Situational power and interpersonal dominance facilitate bias and inequality.
J Soc Issues.
1998; 54(4): 677–698. Publisher Full Text
- Hamilton DL, Sherman SJ, Ruvolo CM:Stereotype-based expectancies: effects on information processing and social behavior.
J Soc Issues.
1990; 46(2): 35–60. Publisher Full Text
- Hatzenbuehler ML, Nolen-Hoeksema S, Dovidio J: How does stigma “get under the skin”?: the mediating role of emotion regulation.
Psychol Sci.
2009;20(10): 1282–1289. Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Hinton PR:Implicit stereotypes and the predictive brain: cognition and culture in “biased” person perception.
Palgrave Commun.
2017; 3: 17086. Publisher Full Text
- Hipolito I, Kirchhoff MD:The predictive brain: a modular view of brain and cognitive function?2019; Publisher Full Text
- Hutto DD, Gallagher S, Ilundáin-Agurruza J, et al.: Culture in mind –an enactivist account: not cognitive penetration but cultural permeation. In: Kirmayer LJ, Worthman CM, Kitayama S, Lemelson R, Cummings C (A c. Di),
Culture, mind, and brain
. (1 a ed.,). Cambridge University Press, 2020; 163–187. Publisher Full Text
- Johns M, Inzlicht M, Schmader T:Stereotype threat and executive resource depletion: examining the influence of emotion regulation.
J Exp Psychol Gen.
2008; 137(4): 691–705. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Kahneman D:2013;
Thinking, fast and slow.
1st pbk. ed:Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
- Kawakami K, Dovidio JF, Moll J, et al.:Just say no (to stereotyping): effects of training in the negation of stereotypic associations on stereotype activation.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
2000; 78(5): 871–888. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Kosslyn SM:Mental images and the brain.
Cogn Neuropsychol.
2005; 22(3–4): 333–347. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Kunda Z:The case for motivated reasoning.
Psychol Bull.
1990; 108(3): 480–498. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Kunz S:Privileged mobilities: locating the expatriate in migration scholarship.
Geogr Compass.
2016; 10(3): 89–101. Publisher Full Text
- Leinonen J:Invisible immigrants, visible expats?: Americans in Finnish discourses on immigration and internationalization.
Nord J Migr Res.
2012; 2(3): 213–223. Publisher Full Text
- Lippmann W: Stereotypes. In: Lippmann W,
Public opinion
. MacMillan Co,1957; 79–94. Publisher Full Text
- MacDonald AW, Cohen JD, Stenger VA, et al.:Dissociating the role of the dorsolateral prefrontal and anterior cingulate cortex in cognitive control.
Science.
2000; 288(5472): 1835–1838. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Macrae CN, Bodenhausen GV, Milne AB, et al.:On the activation of social stereotypes: the moderating role of processing objectives.
J Exp Soc Psychol.
1997; 33(5): 471–489. Publisher Full Text
- Metcalfe J:1998;
Metacognition
:Psychology Press. Publisher Full Text
- Nelson TD, Olson MA:2024;
The psychology of prejudice.
Third ed: The Guilford press.
- Nieuwenhuis S, Ridderinkhof KR, Blom J, et al.:Error-related brain potentials are differentially related to awareness of response errors: evidence from an antisaccade task.
Psychophysiology.
2001; 38(5): 752–760. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Olier JS, Spadavecchia C:Stereotypes, disproportions, and power asymmetries in the visual portrayal of migrants in ten countries: an interdisciplinary AI-based approach.
Humanit Soc Sci Commun.
2022; 9(1): 410. Publisher Full Text
- Oswald FL, Mitchell G, Blanton H, et al.:Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: a meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
2013; 105(2): 171–192. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Otten M, Seth AK, Pinto Y:A social Bayesian brain: how social knowledge can shape visual perception.
Brain Cogn.
2017; 112: 69–77. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Paluck EL, Green DP:Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice.
Annu Rev Psychol.
2009; 60(1): 339–367. Publisher Full Text
- Payne BK, Vuletich HA, Lundberg KB:The Bias of Crowds: How Implicit Bias Bridges Personal and Systemic Prejudice.
Psychol Inq.
2017; 28(4): 233–248. Publisher Full Text
- Qu Y:Stereotypes of adolescence: cultural differences, consequences, and intervention.
Child Dev Perspect.
2023; 17(3–4): 136–141. Publisher Full Text
- Roberts SO, Rizzo MT:The psychology of American racism.
Am Psychol.
2021; 76(3): 475–487. Publisher Full Text
- Safron A, Klimaj V, Hipólito I:On the importance of being flexible: dynamic brain networks and their potential functional significances.
Front Syst Neurosci.
2022; 15: 688424. Publisher Full Text
| Free Full Text
- Sherman JW, Stroessner SJ, Conrey FR, et al.:Prejudice and stereotype maintenance processes: attention, attribution, and individuation.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
2005; 89(4): 607–622. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Sinclair L, Kunda Z:Reactions to a black professional: motivated inhibition and activation of conflicting stereotypes.
J Pers Soc Psychol.
1999; 77(5): 885–904. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Spencer SJ, Fein S, Wolfe CT, et al.:Automatic activation of stereotypes: the role of self-image threat.
Pers Soc Psychol Bull.
1998; 24(11): 1139–1152. Publisher Full Text
- Spencer SJ, Logel C, Davies PG:Stereotype threat.
Annu Rev Psychol.
2016; 67: 415–437. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
- Stangor C, Crandall CS: Stereotyping and prejudice (1st ed). Psychology Press, (A c. Di),2013. Reference Source
- Steele CM:A threat in the air: How stereotypes shape intellectual identity and performance.
Am Psychol.
1997; 52(6): 613–629. Publisher Full Text
- Taylor SE, Schneider SK:Coping and the simulation of events.
Soc Cogn.
1989; 7(2): 174–194. Publisher Full Text
- Turner JC, Brown RJ, Tajfel H:Social comparison and group interest in ingroup favouritism.
Eur J Soc Psychol.
1979; 9(2): 187–204. Publisher Full Text
- Yeager DS, Walton GM:Social-Psychological Interventions in Education: They’re Not Magic.
Rev Educ Res.
2011; 81(2): 267–301. Publisher Full Text
- Yeung VWL, Kashima Y:Communicating stereotype-relevant information: how readily can people individuate?
Asian J Soc Psychol.
2010; 13(4): 209–220. Publisher Full Text
- Zurn P, Bassett DS, Rust NC:The citation diversity statement: a practice of transparency, a way of life.
Trends Cogn Sci.
2020; 24(9): 669–672. PubMed Abstract
| Publisher Full Text
