Although researchers often assume their participants are naive to experimental materials, this is not always the case. We investigated how prior exposure to a task affects subsequent experimental ...results. Participants in this study completed the same set of 12 experimental tasks at two points in time, first as a part of the Many Labs replication project and again a few days, a week, or a month later. Effect sizes were markedly lower in the second wave than in the first. The reduction was most pronounced when participants were assigned to a different condition in the second wave. We discuss the methodological implications of these findings.
Much of human thought, feeling, and behavior unfolds automatically. Indirect measures of cognition capture such processes by observing responding under corresponding conditions (e.g., lack of ...intention or control). The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is one such measure. The IAT indexes the strength of association between categories such as “planes” and “trains” and attributes such as “fast” and “slow” by comparing response latencies across two sorting tasks (planes–fast/trains–slow vs. trains–fast/planes–slow). Relying on a reanalysis of multitrait–multimethod (MTMM) studies, Schimmack (this issue, p. 396) argues that the IAT and direct measures of cognition, for example, Likert scales, can serve as indicators of the same latent construct, thereby purportedly undermining the validity of the IAT as a measure of individual differences in automatic cognition. Here we note the compatibility of Schimmack’s empirical findings with a range of existing theoretical perspectives and the importance of considering evidence beyond MTMM approaches to establishing construct validity. Depending on the nature of the study, different standards of validity may apply to each use of the IAT; however, the evidence presented by Schimmack is easily reconcilable with the potential of the IAT to serve as a valid measure of automatic processes in human cognition, including in individual-difference contexts.
The Implicit Association Test Ratliff, Kate A.; Smith, Colin Tucker
Daedalus (Cambridge, Mass.),
03/2024, Letnik:
153, Številka:
1
Journal Article
Recenzirano
Odprti dostop
Among the general public and behavioral scientists alike, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) is the best known and most widely used tool for demonstrating implicit bias: the unintentional impact of ...social group information on behavior. More than forty million IATs have been completed at the Project Implicit research website. These public datasets are the most comprehensive documentation of IAT and self-reported bias scores in existence. In this essay, we describe the IAT procedure, summarize key findings using the IAT to document the pervasiveness and correlates of implicit bias, and discuss various ways to interpret IAT scores. We also highlight the most common uses of the IAT. Finally, we discuss unanswered questions and future directions for the IAT specifically, and implicit bias research more generally.
This research investigated the role of gender attitudes in the United States 2016 presidential election between Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump. The results of three studies (combined N = 2,816) ...showed that, as expected, Trump voters were higher in hostile and benevolent sexism than were Clinton voters. Even after controlling for political ideology and gender (Studies 1, 2, and 3) and minority group attitudes (Study 3), greater hostile sexism predicted more positive attitudes toward Trump, less positive attitudes toward Clinton, and retrospective reports of having voted for Trump over Clinton (Studies 2 and 3). Benevolent sexism did not predict additional variation in voting behavior beyond political ideology and hostile sexism. These results suggest that political behavior is based on more than political ideology; even among those with otherwise progressive views, overtly antagonistic views of women could be a liability to women—and an asset to men—running for office.
People who are more defensive about their feedback on the Race-Attitudes Implicit Association Test (IAT) are less willing to engage in anti-bias behaviors. Extending on this work, we statistically ...clarified defensiveness constructs to predict willingness to engage in anti-bias behaviors among people who received pro-White versus no-bias IAT feedback. We replicated the finding that U.S. Americans are generally defensive toward pro-White IAT feedback, and that more defensiveness predicts less willingness to engage in anti-bias behaviors. However, people who believed their pro-White IAT feedback was an inaccurate reflection of their "true attitudes" were
willing to engage in anti-bias behaviors compared with people who received no-bias IAT feedback. These results better illuminate the defensiveness construct suggesting that receiving self-threatening feedback about bias may motivate people's willingness to engage in anti-bias behaviors in different ways depending on how people respond to that feedback.
Can people learn about implicit bias through an online course? We developed a brief (∼30 min) online educational program called Understanding Implicit Bias (UIB) consisting of four modules: (a) what ...is implicit bias? (b) the Implicit Association Test, (c) implicit bias and behavior, and (d) what can you do? In Experiment 1, we randomly assigned 6,729 college students across three separate samples to complete dependent measures before (control group) or after (intervention group) the UIB program. In Experiment 2, we randomly assigned 389 college students to complete the UIB program (intervention group) or two TED talks (control group) before dependent measures. Compared to control groups, the intervention groups had significantly higher objective knowledge about bias (ds = 0.39, 1.49) and subjective knowledge about bias (ds = 1.43, 2.61), awareness of bias (ds = 0.10, 0.54), and behavioral intentions to reduce bias (ds = 0.19, 0.84). These differences were again observed at a 2-week follow-up. These results suggest that brief online education about bias can affect knowledge and awareness of bias, as well as intentions to change behavior.
Public Significance Statement
The Understanding Implicit Bias (UIB) program is a brief interactive online educational program to teach students about bias. Compared to control groups, the UIB program increases bias knowledge, awareness, and intentions to reduce bias in behavior.
What is the purpose of punishment? The current research shows that for entitled people—those with inflated self‐worth—justice is about maintaining societal hierarchies. Entitled people more strongly ...hold self‐enhancing values (power and achievement; Studies 1 and 3). They are also more likely, when thinking about justice for offenders, to adopt a hierarchy‐based justice orientation: Perceptions that crime threatens hierarchies, motives to restore those hierarchies, and support for retribution (Studies 2 and 3). Further, the relationship of entitlement to justice orientation is mediated by self‐enhancing values when entitlement is measured (Study 3) and manipulated (Studies 4, 5 and 6). Together these studies suggest that entitlement—and the resultant preoccupation with one's status—facilitates a view of justice as a hierarchy‐based transaction: one where criminal offenders and their victims exchange power and status. These findings reveal the self‐enhancing and hierarchy‐focused nature of entitlement, as well as the roots of retribution in concerns about status, power, and hierarchies.
A robust body of literature on the better‐than‐average effect suggests that people believe that they are better than the average others across a variety of domains. In two studies, we examined ...whether these better‐than‐average beliefs occur for bias related to stereotyping and prejudice. Moreover, we investigated the hypothesis that better‐than‐average beliefs will predict defensive responding to feedback indicating personal bias (e.g., preferences for majority groups, societally endorsed stereotypes). Specifically, we examined defensive responses to implicit attitude feedback. Study 1 examined this prediction using archival analysis of two large, online samples of participants completing a Weight‐related Implicit Association Test (IAT). Study 2 conceptually replicated Study 1 using nine different, randomly assigned IATs and additional measures of defensiveness. In both studies, people generally believed that they were less biased than others. Moreover, people responded defensively to feedback indicating they were biased. This effect was moderated by better‐than‐average beliefs such that feedback indicating societally consistent bias was related to defensiveness most (and sometimes only) when people believed they were better than average initially. This work represents the first foray into examining the possible moderating role of social‐comparative beliefs in predicting responses to implicit attitude feedback and spurs several important avenues for future research.
This research examined the influence of a romantic partner's success or failure on one's own implicit and explicit self-esteem. In Experiment 1, men had lower implicit self-esteem when their partner ...did well at a "social intelligence" task than when their partner did poorly. Women's implicit self-esteem was unaffected by partner performance. Experiments 2 and 3 showed that Dutch men's implicit self-esteem was negatively affected by their romantic partner's success. In Experiment 4, we replicated Experiments 1-3 in both the academic and social domains, and in Experiment 5, we demonstrated that men's implicit self-esteem is negatively influenced by thinking about a romantic partner's success both when the success is relative and when it is not. In sum, men's implicit self-esteem is lower when a partner succeeds than when a partner fails, whereas women's implicit self-esteem is not. These gender differences have important implications for understanding social comparison in romantic relationships.
