The connections between intergroup cognition and intergroup behavior are complex, and it is quite obvious that overt behavior directed at the members of outgroups is multiply determined. Nevertheless, this chapter attempted to sketch out a picture of some of the most basic elements of the path from stereotypes to discrimination. From the considerations raised here, a few fairly general conclusions seem warranted.

First, the seeds of discriminatory reactions often (although certainly not universally) lie in stereotypic beliefs about outgroups. These beliefs (as well as more affective reactions; see Jussim et al., 1995) can be activated without intent and without the perceiver's awareness. Once activated, a variety of processes are instigated that can lead to a biased and incomplete assessment of the data that are available about outgroup targets. If the meaning that is imposed on the target and his or her behavior is biased, ensuing reactions are also likely to be biased. Hence, discrimination can result.

Second, the avoidance of discriminatory responses is possible, but the prerequisites are considerable. The perceiver must be aware of the potential for bias, must care about the possibility of bias, and must have adequate cognitive resources to do something about it. Perceivers who are genuinely motivated to avoid stereotypic bias may attempt to suppress stereotypic thoughts, but as has been seen, this noble goal may have counterintentional consequences. Sometimes suppression activity may actually increase the extent of discriminatory responses (Macrae et al., 1994). These persons may also attempt to correct their initial judgments to eliminate potential biases, but it is difficult to know how to calibrate these adjustments appropriately. Other perceivers may have few qualms about harboring stereotypic ideas, yet they may be motivated to avoid public expression of their biased views. For them, the avoidance of discrimination amounts to little more than concealment and subterfuge. Furthermore, they may be especially likely to find apparently satisfactory situational justifications for discriminatory responses that can be used to deflect accusations of prejudice (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).

These findings indicate that intentions to avoid discrimination, whether they are internally or externally motivated, may often meet with failure. Although awareness and concern about discrimination have increased, it is premature to assume that its evils can be avoided simply by the formation of good intentions. Of course, not everyone has good intentions. To avoid discrimination, situations where intergroup contact occurs and where consequential decisions about outgroup members are being made need to be structured in a way that fosters (a) awareness of potential biases, (b) motivation to avoid such bias, and (c) ample time and freedom from distractions and other factors that limit attentional capacity to implement bias-minimizing strategies. Unfortunately, the classroom, the courtroom, the boardroom, and the other arenas of intergroup interaction are often not characterized by these features. Strong emotions, complex and demanding tasks and interaction patterns, time pressures, and distractions can undermine the effectiveness of these strategies.