• Full Name Full Name Comment goes here.
    Are you sure you want to
    Your message goes here
    Be the first to comment
    Be the first to like this
No Downloads

Views

Total Views
428
On Slideshare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
0

Actions

Shares
Downloads
0
Comments
0
Likes
0

Embeds 0

No embeds

Report content

Flagged as inappropriate Flag as inappropriate
Flag as inappropriate

Select your reason for flagging this presentation as inappropriate.

Cancel
    No notes for slide
  • Explicit attitudes are
  • If we just ask people outright, nearly everyone would support voting for a Black president
  • The example here is an implicit attitude toward a candidate
  • At the heart of this approach is really the simple idea that to separate automatic and controlled processes using people’s mistakes, you need to pit them against each other. Preferably, holding everything else constant. If someone is explicitly trying to do one thing, and systematically does another, you have good evidence about their automatic tendencies.
  • The article only looks at White Respondents

Transcript

  • 1. PeffleyPS 474 Political Psychology
  • 2.  Processes occurring outside of awareness Suggests limitations of conscious self-reports, like focus groups and surveys Could you report:▪ whether a pro-life advertisement showing a partial birthabortion influenced your feelings?▪ whether a pro-gun control advertisement showing thecarnage at Sandy Hook Elementary School influencedyour attitudes?
  • 3. Rodney King beating, 1992Amadou Diallo, 1999, NYC
  • 4.  Research Summary Primary research interests includestereotyping, prejudice, and stigma. Most recentresearch examines the nature of racialcategories. Focus on the social psychologicalimplications of viewing race as a naturalcategory (rather than as a socially createdcategory) and the link between racialstereotyping and racial categorization. Education Ph.D. Psychology, Harvard University, 1993
  • 5.  Eberhardt et al. Seeing Black: Race, Crime, andVisual Processing. JPSP 2004.Using police officers and undergraduates as participants, priming with Black faces influence participants’ability to spontaneously detect degraded images of crime-relevant objects (Study1), and conversely, activatingabstract concepts (i.e., crime) induces attentional biases toward Black male faces, especially those who arestereotypically Black (Studies 2– 4 ). Such shifts in perception and attention are likely to influence decisionmaking and behavior.Eberhardt now offers training in overcoming implicit biases in CA police departments.
  • 6. Controlling for a wide array offactors, we found that in casesinvolving a White victim, themore stereotypically Black adefendant is perceived tobe, the more likely that personis to be sentenced to death.
  • 7. Eberhardt et al. NotYet Human: Implicit Knowledge, HistoricalDehumanization, and ContemporaryConsequences. JPSP 2009.Associations between humans and nonhuman animals have been used to justify slavery in the United States, the JewishHolocaust of World War II, violence against immigrants and genocidal conflicts.Historically, the “Negro-ape metaphor” was used to justify subjugation of and violence against Black people. Can theactivation of this association in contemporary society lead people to condone violence against Black targets, despiteindividual differences in anti-Black prejudice?121 white male undergraduates at Pennsylvania State University were subliminally primed with words associatedwith either apes or big cats (also violent/African), and we asked them to view a videotape of a group of police officersbeating a suspect whom the participants were led to believe was either Black or White.Dependent variables:• “How violently did the suspect resist?”• “How justified were the police in usingthe amount of force they used?”• “How much did the suspect deservethe treatment he received?”• “How much did the suspect’sbehavior make violence necessary?”
  • 8. Eberhardt et al. NotYet Human: Implicit Knowledge, HistoricalDehumanization, and ContemporaryConsequences. JPSP 2009.Participants who had been primed with apes vs. big cats perceived the police were more justified in usingviolence against the Black suspect but not the White suspect.Historically dehumanizing associations are still part of the culture and influence discriminatory behavior undersome conditions.Dehumanization of other groups, such as women and immigrants?
  • 9.  Most easily studied in the lab with carefulcontrols and timed responses Political science also needs generalknowledge applied to general and diversepublics, not just college sophomores. Solution: Internet-based survey methods--the best of both worlds! Control Generalizability
  • 10.  Even with changes in social norms, which now discourageexpressions of prejudice, and with changes in many people’sself-reported (explicit) attitudes, prejudice is still animportant factor in contemporary American society. Reasons for the persistence of prejudice: 1) Some people hold explicit prejudicial attitudes withoutcompunction (they make no bones about it). Shrinkingnumber, especially among younger cohorts. 2)Another reason for the persistence of prejudice, even amongthose who renounce prejudice, may simply be that respondingwithout prejudice is sometimes difficult. To respond without prejudice toward outgroupmembers, an individual must overcome years of exposureto biased and stereotypical information -- in thenews, film, their surroundings, literature and history -- thatis likely to influence responses toward out-group members.
  • 11.  Racial and gender categories are primitivecategories that are automatically activated oftenbeyond our control or awareness. There are internal and external motivations torespond without prejudice. Internal: People low in explicit prejudice truly want torespond without prejudice when they realize it has beenactivated. (“Being nonprejudiced toward Black people isimportant to my self-concept.”)▪ But when their attention is distracted or they do not realizeimplicit prejudice has been activated, their implicit prejudicescan influence their responses. External: People high in explicit prejudice want to respondwithout prejudice because they know it is unpopular. (“Iattempt to appear nonprejudiced toward Black people inorder to avoid disapproval from others.”) When are people low in prejudice less likely to beaware that implicit prejudices are activated?
  • 12. PS 474, Political Psychology,Compliments of Keith PayneUNC Chapel HillDepartment of Psychology
  • 13.  In 1995, then-Republican House MajorityLeader Dick Armey (most recently, a formerleader in the “tea party” movement) famouslyreferred to openly homosexual CongressmanBarney Frank as "Barney Fag" in a pressinterview. Armey apologized and said it was "aslip of the tongue". Frank did not acceptArmeys explanation, saying "Iturned to my own expert, my mother, who reportsthat in 59 years of marriage, no one ever introducedher as Elsie Fag."
  • 14. DELIBERATIVE (S2) Deliberative processes arecognitivelyeffortful, demanding ofattention, timeconsuming, and presumedto be based on anintentional memory searchfor relevant facts andconsiderations Examples: Answering a survey question.AUTOMATIC (S1) Involuntary, fast, immediate, top ofthe head, and unlike consciousprocesses can be activated evenwhen the individual’s consciousattention is focused elsewhere. Examples the immediate activation of cognitiveassociations (e.g., Bush is a Republican) the spontaneous activation of feelings(Republicans are evil; Democrats are dumb), habitual actions that operate “mindlessly” amount of time ABC anchorman PeterJennings smiled when reporting on Reaganover Mondale in the 1984 presidential race The racial cues in theWillie Horton adattacking Michael Dukakis in 1988. “RATS” ad
  • 15. Figure from Gawronski & Bodenhausen(2006). Psych Bull.
  • 16.  Explicit attitudes measured with verbal self-reports in a survey can be limited in two ways Social desirability bias (editing & censoring “true”attitudes) People may not be aware of their implicit attitudes &associations
  • 17. EXPLICIT Properties: People are fully aware that a self-report of their attitude is beingrequested. Measures: QuestionDeliberationExplicit AttitudeExamples of prejudice measures:▪ Stereotypes, symbolic racismAdvantages▪ Face validityDisadvantages▪ Social desirability bias▪ Lack of awareness of implicit attitudesthat can influence explicit responsesIMPLICIT Properties: automatic evaluation outside our awareness beyond our control Measures: StimulusAssociationsImplicit Attitude Examples:▪IAT, Payne’s AMP Advantages▪Unobtrusive (we can’t tell what is beingmeasured) Disadvantages▪Can be hard to interpret (e.g., IAT)
  • 18. 1. To what extent are voting decisionsinfluenced by explicit vs. implicit attitudes?2. How much do voters know about their ownpreferences?3. Has racial prejudice faded?4. Did it play a role in 2008 presidentialelection?
  • 19.  If we ask people outright, hardly anyone wouldsay they would discriminate against a qualifiedBlack (Hispanic, Female) job candidate orpresidential candidate (see figures) But we know, based on careful audit studies thatdiscrimination still occurs Group prejudice or negative associations towardgroups are hard to capture with explicitmeasures due to: Social desirability bias Feelings, associations of S1 that we aren’t aware of orcan’t access via S2
  • 20. 2007 GallupPoll:94% said “yes”
  • 21.  Implicit AssociationTest (IAT) Anthony Greenwald Online: 122 research reports of 184 independentsamples, 14,900 subjects Implicit and explicit attitudes not highly correlated &do not necessarily predict the same types of behaviors Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) Keith Payne Different implicit measures not necessarily highlycorrelated
  • 22.  Good reliability Large effects Difficult tocomplete Controversial tointerpret•The most well-known implicit attitude measure•The example here is an implicit attitude toward a candidate•Interpretation: If the participant responds more quickly to pairings of the candidate(Obama/McCain) or group (Black/White) with “unpleasant” than to pairings of “pleasant,” theassociations are assumed to be stronger, which indicates the individual has an implicit biasagainst Obama or Blacks.
  • 23.  Simple to complete Simple to interpret High reliability Large effectsPayne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart(2005).Payne’s measure: Large effects and easier to interpret
  • 24. Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart (2005).75ms100msPleasant /Unpleasant?
  • 25.  “Your job in this task is to make simple judgments about the Chinesesymbols while avoiding distraction from the photos.” “Pleasant photos can make you judge the symbols more positively than youotherwise would. Likewise, unpleasant photos can make you judge thesymbols more negatively than you otherwise would… Please try yourabsolute best not to be influenced by the photos…” The Logic of the warning: If someone is explicitly trying to do onething, and systematically does another, you have good evidence that theirresponses are automatic, not controlled. Impact of the Warning: Telling people NOT to let the pictures influencetheir judgments has no impact on their ratings of the Chinese symbols. Conclude: this measure of implicit attitudes is not subject to awarenessor control.
  • 26. Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart (2005). JPSP. Large effect d = 2.4 Alpha = .81Proportion pleasant responses
  • 27. Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart (2005). JPSP. Large effect d = 2.4 Alpha = .81Proportion pleasant responses
  • 28. Implicit & Explicit measures of prejudice included in2 types of surveys in 20081.Time Series (address based sampling) Computer-assisted in-person interviews N = 1,933 completing all measures Pre-election interview September – November2008 Post interview November – December2. Panel Study (random digit dialing sampling) Internet survey N = 1,056 completing all measures Surveyed each month January – November 2008 Prejudice measured September – October
  • 29.  Each of 48 trials briefly presented a photograph ofthe face of a White or Black man, followed by aChinese ideograph. Each trial began with: a fixation point, followed by a face presented for 75 ms (prime), followed next by a pictograph for 250 ms (Chineseideograph), which was followed by a black and white noise mask (whenthey make the rating). The mask remained on the screen until a responsewas registered. Respondents were instructed tojudge whether each ideograph was pleasant orunpleasant while avoiding influence from thephotos. Unintentional influence of the primes onjudgments can be used to measure attitudes towardtheWhite and Black faces. Previous research showsthat the procedure is a valid measure of prejudicethat is resistant to social desirability pressures(Payne et al., 2008)
  • 30.  Stereotype measure Thermometer ratings of Blacks,Whites Symbolic racism (racial resentment scale)
  • 31. White Respondents Black Respondents
  • 32. White Respondents Black Respondents
  • 33. Controlled for other predictors ofpresidential vote choice:• Party ID,• Conservatism,• Race, Gender, Age, Education, Income
  • 34.  Obama voter vote for McCain Non-voter vote for McCain Obama voter vote for neither
  • 35.  Both explicit and implicit attitudes had a significantimpact on voting for Obama in 2008. Explicit prejudice: Citizens higher in explicit prejudicewere less likely to vote for Barack Obama and more likelyto vote for John McCain. Implicit prejudice: Even after controlling for explicitprejudice, citizens higher in implicit prejudice were lesslikely to vote for Obama. But instead of being morelikely to vote for McCain, they were more likely to eitherabstain or to vote for a third-party candidate rather thanObama. Overall:The results suggest that racial prejudice maycontinue to influence the voting process even amongpeople who would not endorse these attitudes.Survey questions:• Feelings toward Blacks• Symbolic Racism• Stereotypes