Personalizing the Implicit Association Test Increases Explicit Evaluation of Target Concepts

Nosek, Brian A.; Hansen, Jeffrey J.

doi:10.1027/1015-5759.24.4.226

Cited by 36 publications

(40 citation statements)

References 17 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…Hofmann et al 2005) and research into the influence of different varieties of the IAT with respect to the outcomes measured. For example, it has been found that a slightly changed "personalized" IAT assessed in somewhat different associations than the "standard" IAT (Houben and Wiers 2007;Nosek and Hansen 2008;Olson and Fazio 2004). By implication, it is likely that the IAT which used pictures from the bullying movie (i.e., the pictures are likely to have acquired personal emotional meaning due to the movie) assessed something different from the general IAT which assesses associations with the general concept of bullying (e.g.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Goethem

Scholte

Wiers

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The main aim of this study was to examine whether an assessment of implicit bullying attitudes could add to the prediction of bullying behavior after controlling for explicit bullying attitudes. Primary school children (112 boys and 125 girls, M age=11 years, 5 months) completed two newly developed measures of implicit bullying attitudes (a general Implicit Association Test on bullying and a movie-primed specific IAT on bullying), an explicit bullying attitude measure, and self reported, peer reported, and teacher rated bullying behavior. While explicit bullying attitudes predicted bullying behavior, implicit attitudes did not. However, a significant interaction between implicit and explicit bullying attitudes indicated that in children with relatively positive explicit attitudes, implicit bullying attitudes were important predictors of bullying behavior. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.Keywords Explicit bullying attitudes . Implicit bullying attitudes . Interaction explicit and implicit bullying attitudes . Bullying School bullying is a large societal problem and is already evident among primary school children. Studies on this population show that 3-27% of the children bully, and 9-32% are bullied once a week or more (Berger 2007). Bullying has also been shown to have large negative consequences for the well-being of victims and bullies (Berger 2007;Scholte et al. 2007), which stresses the importance of targeting bullying behavior together with the factors that are related to bullying.Various factors have been found to contribute to the extent to which children bully other children. Research evidence indicates that social factors such as group membership and peer pressure, as well as individual, personal factors such as physical strength, aggressiveness, and empathy influence bullying (Rigby 2004). Another often studied individual factor is children's attitudes towards bullying. Attitudes are predictors of all kinds of spontaneous and deliberate social and non-social behavior (e.g., Glasman and Albarracin 2006) including bullying behavior (Salmivalli and Voeten 2004). Attitudes can be defined as general and enduring, concrete or abstract evaluations of a person, group, or issue and can be based on beliefs, emotions and behavior (cf. Petty and Cacioppo 1986).In attitude research, a distinction is made between implicit attitudes and explicit attitudes. Implicit attitudes are impulsive, spontaneous, uncontrolled emotional reactions and evaluations. In contrast, explicit attitudes refer to deliberate, reflective, controlled, consciously self-reported evaluations (Gawronski and Bodenhausen 2006). Dualprocess models assume that there are two different modes of information processing that underlie implicit and explicit attitudes. According to these models more automatic, impulsive, associative processes underlie implicit attitudes and more controlled, reflective processes underlie explicit During the research project on implicit and explicit bullying attitudes all authors were working at ...

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Goethem

Scholte

Wiers

2010

J Abnorm Child Psychol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Recently, Nosek and Hansen (2008) argued, using data collected from an IAT web site, that respondents to the personalized IAT are more likely than those completing the standard IAT to mistakenly evaluate the target category exemplars in terms of attributes. That is, respondents were argued to sometimes classify targets (Black and White exemplars) in terms of like/dislike instead of by race in accordance with the instructions.…”

Section: The Present Researchmentioning

confidence: 99%

Evidence for the underestimation of implicit in-group favoritism among low-status groups

Olson

Crawford

Devlin

2009

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

“…Because there are controversies surrounding which IAT is optimal for assessing automatic evaluations (e.g., Gawronski, Peters, & LeBel, 2008;Han, Czellar, Olson, & Fazio, 2010;Han, Olson, & Fazio, 2006;Nosek & Hansen, 2008a, 2008bOlson & Fazio, 2004;Olson, Fazio, & Han, 2009), Experiment 3 utilized the standard IAT to extend the findings from Experiments 1 and 2. Although we expected the effects of perspective taking on the two IAT variants to be comparable, it is ultimately an empirical question.…”

Section: Experiments 3: Automatic and Deliberate Interracial Evaluatiomentioning

confidence: 99%

Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias.

Todd

Bodenhausen

Richeson

et al. 2011

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology

342

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Five experiments investigated the hypothesis that perspective taking-actively contemplating others' psychological experiences-attenuates automatic expressions of racial bias. Across the first 3 experiments, participants who adopted the perspective of a Black target in an initial context subsequently exhibited more positive automatic interracial evaluations, with changes in automatic evaluations mediating the effect of perspective taking on more deliberate interracial evaluations. Furthermore, unlike other bias-reduction strategies, the interracial positivity resulting from perspective taking was accompanied by increased salience of racial inequalities (Experiment 3). Perspective taking also produced stronger approach-oriented action tendencies toward Blacks (but not Whites; Experiment 4). A final experiment revealed that face-to-face interactions with perspective takers were rated more positively by Black interaction partners than were interactions with nonperspective takers-a relationship that was mediated by perspective takers' increased approach-oriented nonverbal behaviors (as rated by objective, third-party observers). These findings indicate that perspective taking can combat automatic expressions of racial biases without simultaneously decreasing sensitivity to ongoing racial disparities.

show abstract

Personalizing the Implicit Association Test Increases Explicit Evaluation of Target Concepts

Cited by 36 publications

References 17 publications

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Explicit- and Implicit Bullying Attitudes in Relation to Bullying Behavior

Evidence for the underestimation of implicit in-group favoritism among low-status groups

Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias.

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About