Implicit bias in impression formation: associations influence the construal of individuating information

Gawronski, Bertram; Geschke, Daniel; Banse, Rainer

doi:10.1002/ejsp.166

Cited by 110 publications

(113 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Building on these insights, scholars have documented the extent to which implicit attitudes contribute to individual judgments and evaluations, including political preferences (e.g., Albertson 2008;Olson and Fazio 2004), views toward racial and sexual orientation minorities (Lyle 2008;Jellison et al 2004;Gawronski et al 2003), consumer tastes (Maison et al 2004), and personal reactions to failure (Greenwald and Farnham 2000). For instance, Gawronski et al (2003) find that implicit attitudes toward Turks led subjects to rate the behavior of Turks more negatively than the behavior of Germans portrayed in ambiguous situations.…”

Section: The Iat and Its Predictive Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The implicit association test (IAT) is increasingly used to detect automatic attitudes. Yet a fundamental question remains about this measure: How well can it predict individual judgments? Though studies find that IAT scores shape individual evaluations, these inquiries do not account for an array of well-validated, theoretically relevant variables, thus raising the challenge of omitted variable bias. For scholars using the IAT, the risk here is one of misattributing to implicit attitudes what can be better explained by alternate and rigorous self-reports of explicit constructs. This paper examines the IAT's performance in the context of U.S. immigration politics. Using a representative web survey of adults, I demonstrate the IAT effectively captures implicit attitude toward Latino immigrants. Critically, I then show these attitudes substantively mold individual preferences for illegal and legal immigration policy, net of political ideology, socio-economic concerns, and well-established measures of intolerance toward immigrants, such as authoritarianism and ethnocentrism. Combined, these results suggest the IAT measures attitudes that are non-redundant and potent predictors of individual political judgments.

show abstract

Section: The Iat and Its Predictive Validitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments

2010

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Even so, in the domain of prejudice, numerous investigations have found evidence for implicit -explicit consistency moderation using Dunton and Fazio's (1997) motivation to control prejudice scale as a domain-specific adjustment construct Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001;Dunton & Fazio, 1997;Fazio et al, 1995;Gawronski, Geschke, & Banse, 2003;Hofmann et al, 2005b;Olson & Fazio, 2004b;Payne et al, 2005; but see Fazio & Hilden, 2001).…”

Section: Adjustmentmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The magnitude of this effect was surprisingly small. Together with the meta-analysis by Hofmann et al (2005a), this suggests that the field's emphasis on self-presentation as a (the) moderator of implicit -explicit consistency may be too strong.Even so, in the domain of prejudice, numerous investigations have found evidence for implicit -explicit consistency moderation using Dunton and Fazio's (1997) motivation to control prejudice scale as a domain-specific adjustment construct Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001;Dunton & Fazio, 1997;Fazio et al, 1995;Gawronski, Geschke, & Banse, 2003;Hofmann et al, 2005b;Olson & Fazio, 2004b;Payne et al, 2005; but see Fazio & Hilden, 2001).Plant and Devine (1998) further distinguish two types of stereotype control motivation: internal and external motivation to control prejudice. People high in internal motivation are assumed to control for prejudice due to strongly internalised personal standards while those high in external motivation are externally constrained to comply with society's egalitarian norms.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Hofmann¹,

Gschwendner²,

Nosek³

2005

European Review of Social Psychology

178

145

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit and explicit indicators of attitudes or personality traits are positively, and variably, related. This review places the question of implicit -explicit consistency into the tradition of attitude/trait -behaviour consistency (e.g., Wicker, 1969). Drawing on dual-process models, such as the recent distinction between associative and propositional representations (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), we identify a working model of implicit -explicit consistency that organises the empirical evidence on implicit -explicit moderation into five factors: translation between implicit and explicit representations (e.g., representational strength, awareness), additional information integration for explicit representations (e.g., need for cognition), properties of explicit assessment (e.g., social desirability concerns), properties of implicit assessment (e.g., situational malleability), and research design factors (e.g., sampling bias, measurement correspondence).A significant proportion of psychological research over the last three decades concerns the automatic nature of information processing (Bargh, 1997;Khilstrom, 1999;Wegner & Bargh, 1998). Theory and empirical data have broadened notions of core psychological concepts like attitudes, stereotypes, self-concept, goals, personality, and self-esteem to include not Correspondence should be addressed to Wilhelm Hofmann, Fachbereich 8 -Psychologie Universita¨t Koblenz-Landau, Fortstraße 7, 76829 Landau, Germany. Email: hofmannw@ uni-landau.de Preparation of this chapter was supported by a grant from the German Science Foundation (DFG) to Manfred Schmitt (Schm 1092/5-1) and by a grant from the National Institute of Mental Health to Brian Nosek (R01 MH-068447). We would like to thank Rainer Banse, Boris Egloff, Malte Friese, Bertram Gawronski, and Jane Thompson for valuable comments on an earlier version of this chapter.EUROPEAN REVIEW OF SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY 2005, 16, 335 -390 2005 European Association of Experimental Social Psychology http://www.tandf.co.uk/journals/pp/10463283.html DOI: 10.1080/10463280500443228 just the explicit assessments that are products of introspection, but also implicit components of these constructs that may occur outside of conscious awareness or control (Asendorpf, Banse, & Mu¨cke, 2002;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Wilson, Lindsey, & Schooler, 2000). Whereas implicit constructs are assumed to operate automatically and may be inaccessible to conscious experience, their explicit counterparts are conceptualised as reflective (conscious) and capacity-consuming mental representations that influence action through deliberation (e.g., Bargh, 1994;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995). This distinction plays a role in a variety of dual-process theories that distinguish two modes of information processing such as implicit vs explicit (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995;Wilson et al., 2000), automatic vs controlled (Bargh, 1994), impulsive vs reflective (Strack & Deutsch, 2004), and associative vs rule-based (Sloman, 1996;Smith & DeCoster, 2000). These theories share an assumpti...

show abstract

“…She found that individuals unconsciously primed with words associated with the stereotype of black people viewed ambiguous behaviour to be more aggressive than those who were not primed in this way. When the automatically activated stereotype associating black people with violence was applied, an inaccurate judgement was made: ambiguous evidence was interpreted in a way that led people to think that the act was violent rather than ambiguous (for further evidence of the influence of implicit associations on the interpretation of ambiguous behaviour see Gawronski, Geschke, and Banse 2003). It is epistemically costly that our stereotypes work in this way because they lead to misperceptions of behavioural evidence.…”

Section: Misinterpretation Of Ambiguous Evidencementioning

confidence: 99%

Dissolving the epistemic/ethical dilemma over implicit bias

Puddifoot

2017

Philosophical Explorations

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Implicit bias in impression formation: associations influence the construal of individuating information

Cited by 110 publications

References 52 publications

Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments

Explicit Evidence on the Import of Implicit Attitudes: The IAT and Immigration Policy Judgments

What moderates implicit—explicit consistency?

Dissolving the epistemic/ethical dilemma over implicit bias

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About