The present study served two purposes. First of all, the reliability and validity of a variant of the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) adapted to Asian samples was tested. Secondly, we aimed at assessing prejudice towards Koreans by means of the AMP and the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as well as different self-report measures. The AMP variant was reliable and showed meaningful correlations with some selfreport measures, but not with the IAT. Furthermore, both in the AMP and the IAT, participants demonstrated prejudice against Koreans, whereas the self-report measures showed a less consistent pattern of prejudice. Our discussion focuses on chances and challenges of using indirect and direct measures in Asian samples.
Speakers of English frequently associate location in space with valence, as in moving up and down the “social ladder.” If such an association also holds for the sagittal axis, an object “in front of” another object would be evaluated more positively than the one “behind.” Yet how people conceptualize relative locations depends on which frame of reference (FoR) they adopt—and hence on cross‐linguistically diverging preferences. What is conceptualized as “in front” in one variant of the relative FoR (e.g., translation) is “behind” under another variant (reflection), and vice versa. Do such diverging conceptualizations of an object's location also lead to diverging evaluations? In two studies employing an implicit association test, we demonstrate, first, that speakers of German, Chinese, and Japanese indeed evaluate the object “in front of” another object more positively than the one “behind.” Second, and crucially, the reversal of which object is conceptualized as “in front” involves a corresponding reversal of valence, suggesting an impact of linguistically imparted FoR preferences on evaluative processes.
scite is a Brooklyn-based organization that helps researchers better discover and understand research articles through Smart Citations–citations that display the context of the citation and describe whether the article provides supporting or contrasting evidence. scite is used by students and researchers from around the world and is funded in part by the National Science Foundation and the National Institute on Drug Abuse of the National Institutes of Health.