Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
➤ Gửi thông báo lỗi ⚠️ Báo cáo tài liệu vi phạmNội dung chi tiết: Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
Understanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionversity (siyengar^,stanford.edu)Kyu Hahn. Yonsei University (khahnfevonsei.ac.kr)Christopher Dial and Malizarin R. Banaji. Harvard University (cdialtg wjh.han ard.edu)(mahzarin banaji(a han ard■ edu)AbstractUsing data from a national sample, we show that a measure of implicit racial bias -- the race Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election IAT -- reveals significantly higher levels of anti-black bias than standard survey measures of racial prejudice and that there is only weak corresponUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
dence between implicit and explicit measures, thus replicating in this sample previous results from drop-in. web-based samples. In the same sample, weUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election antecedents of implicit-explicit attitude consistency and find that individuals who face stronger conformity pressures are especially prone to under-report their level of race prejudice. Finally, we report an analysis of the overlap between racial attitudes and candidate evaluations. Although one p Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionarticular racial attitude " racial resentment ” proved a robust predictor of both explicit and implicit candidate evaluations, attitudes toward the inUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
dividual candidates proved more influential than attitudes toward racial groups.The measurement of Americans’ racial attitudes has become especially cUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election and derogatory terms such as “lazy” or "unintelligent” to describe African-Americans, for instance, has declined sharply since the 1960s (Gacrtncr and Dovidio 2005: Virtanen and Huddy 1998: Taylor. Sheatsley. and Greeley 1978) and in 2004. white Americans evaluated black Americans just as favorably Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election as their own group. On the other hand, when racial attitudes are recorded using more indirect questions, there is considerable evidence of persistingUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
anti-black and more general anti-minority group biases in American public opinion (Schuman et al. 1997: Sears and Henry 2005; Kukl inski et al. 1997)Understanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionnge. In the social (and sometimes interpersonal) setting of an opinion survey, whites may be motivated to conform to widely-shared egalitarian norms and respond in a manner that suggests the absence of racial bias (see McConahay. Hardee, and Batts 1981). When survey questions are framed so as to dis Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionguise the racial cues, however, the results typically indicate that ‘ blatantly prejudiced attitudes still pervade the white population" (Kuklinski clUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
al. 1997. p. 403; also see Crosby cl al. 1980). Thus, when people do not recognize that they are violating the norm of racial equality, they feel freUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionaises further doubts about the decline of prejudice (sec Fording 2003; Quillian 2006). In the case of crime, support for punitive policies such as the death penalty increases significantly when whites learn that the criminal perpetrator is non-vvhilc rather than white (Gilliam and Iyengar 2000; Hurw Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionitz and Peffley 2007: Eberhardt et al. 2004). Race bias also characterizes employment decisions: jobapplicants with European-sounding first names areUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
preferred (by 50 percent) over applicants with identical resumes, but African American-sounding names (Bertrand and Mullainathan 2004). In short. AmerUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionmus, researchers have advocated shifting the definition of prejudice away from explicit racial animus in favor of more indirect and diffuse measures of “symbolic racism” or “racial resentment.” In this revisionist view, prejudice in the modem era is some blend of racial animus and mainstream cultura Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionl values that is best captured by focusing on beliefs about minorities’ adherence to the American way (Kinder and Sears. 1981; Kinder and Sanders. 199Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
6; Feldman and Huddy, 2005). Although survey indicators of symbolic racism or racial resentment are known to predict a variety of race-related policy Understanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election per se (see Snidennan and Piazza 1993; Carmines and Sniderman 1997).Implicit Versus Explicit Racial AttimdesOxer the past 25 years, psychologists have arrived at the very same place via a different path. Experiments on the most fundamental aspects of the human mind, such as the ability to perceive Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election(e.g.. vision) and remember (memory) have shown not only that the human brain can operate outside conscious awareness, but also that such unintended tUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
hought and feeling may even be the dominant mode of operation (Bargh 1999). Evidence from behavior and direct measures of the brain suggest it may be Understanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election offered that the analysis of attinides. stereotypes, and self-concept could gain from an analysis of2relatively more automatic versus reflective forms of operation and labeled the new system of interest as one that tapped implicit social cognition as distinct from explicit social cognition.Contempo Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionrary psychologists have been less interested in the idea that people may deliberately misrepresent their attitudes and beliefs and have largely assumeUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
d that even if that were not the case, the conscious aspect of preferences and beliefs are likely to be a thin sliver of the mind's overall work. In oUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 elections of preferences and beliefs (see Banaji and Heiphetz 2010, for a review) that have an existence independent of consciously stated ones. The assumption is that although explicit attitudes do in fact reflect genuine conscious preferences (which, in the case of race, have indeed changed over the cours Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electione of the past 100 years), they shed no light on less conscious and therefore inaccessible preferences that may nevertheless influence behavior. In theUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
area of race, there is now an extensive literature on implicit attitudes, their relationship to explicit attitudes, and their prediction of behaviorsUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election of implicit bias, the Implicit Association Test (IAT) showed that implicit measures are better at predicting behavior and incrementally so over explicit measures in the discrimination context (Greenwald et al. 2009).hl general, research on implicit social cognition is marked by a strong effort to d Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionevelop methods that bypass the standard posing of questions altogether and relies instead on rapid responses to concepts (such as Black and White) andUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
attributes (such as good and bad). Based on the idea that that which has come to be automatically associated will be responded to faster and with fewUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electiontribute pairs such as {Black+good and White+bad) to generate an indirect measure of racial preference as well as other aspects of social cognition such as stereotypes and identity. There are several such methods, of which the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald. McGhee, and Schwarz. 1998) and Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionevaluative priming are the most common (see Banaji and Heiphetz 2010: Petty. Fazio, and Brinol 2007).Just as survey research using newer questions ledUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
to the discovery that old-fashioned and modem versions of racial attitudes may be distinct psychological constructs, research on implicit social cognUnderstanding Explicit and Implicit Attitudes: A Comparison of Racial Group and CandidatePreferences in the 2008 ElectionShanto Iyengar. Stanford Univ Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electionof implicit bias involving response latency.OverviewConceptually, we are interested in mapping the distribution of implicit and explicit versions of racial and political candidate attitudes. More than a million implicit association tests have been collected at implicit.harvard.edu. but these data ar Understanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 electione based entirely on self-selected participants. The first test we will provide is to compare data from our representative national sample with these nUnderstanding explicit and implicit attitudes a comparison of racial group and candidate preferences in the 2008 election
on-random samples. This in itself is an important contribution because there is no evidence as yet that the data generated from large web samples areGọi ngay
Chat zalo
Facebook