2002
DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835
|View full text |Cite
|
Sign up to set email alerts
|

The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role of motivations to respond without prejudice.

Abstract: Three studies examined the moderating role of motivations to respond without prejudice (e.g., internal and external) in expressions of explicit and implicit race bias. In all studies, participants reported their explicit attitudes toward Blacks. Implicit measures consisted of a sequential priming task (Study 1) and the Implicit Association Test (Studies 2 and 3). Study 3 used a cognitive busyness manipulation to preclude effects of controlled processing on implicit responses. In each study, explicit race bias … Show more

Help me understand this report

Search citation statements

Order By: Relevance

Paper Sections

Select...
1
1
1
1

Citation Types

54
616
6
11

Year Published

2004
2004
2016
2016

Publication Types

Select...
5
4
1

Relationship

0
10

Authors

Journals

citations
Cited by 609 publications
(687 citation statements)
references
References 53 publications
54
616
6
11
Order By: Relevance
“…The suppression of prejudices has long been seen as an effortful, inhibitory, top-down regulation (Devine & Monteith, 1999), but more recent findings point to the possibility of overlearned, automated forms of prejudice inhibition. Specifically, participants highly motivated to control prejudiced responses not only expressed less explicit prejudice, but also less bias in tasks that did not afford conscious control, like evaluative priming (Maddux, Barden, Brewer, & Petty, 2005), startle eye blink response (Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Devine, 2003), or an Implicit Association Task (Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002). An analogous automated suppression of sex-induced aggression would seem highly desirable for the development towards a society without sexual aggression.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…The suppression of prejudices has long been seen as an effortful, inhibitory, top-down regulation (Devine & Monteith, 1999), but more recent findings point to the possibility of overlearned, automated forms of prejudice inhibition. Specifically, participants highly motivated to control prejudiced responses not only expressed less explicit prejudice, but also less bias in tasks that did not afford conscious control, like evaluative priming (Maddux, Barden, Brewer, & Petty, 2005), startle eye blink response (Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Devine, 2003), or an Implicit Association Task (Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002). An analogous automated suppression of sex-induced aggression would seem highly desirable for the development towards a society without sexual aggression.…”
Section: Discussionmentioning
confidence: 99%
“…This idea builds on Devine's model of prejudice (Devine, 1989;Devine et al, 2002) that posits that the distinction between high and low prejudice individuals is the motivation to control discriminatory beliefs and attitudes. Studies using unobtrusive measures, such as social distance (e.g.…”
Section: Implications Of This Evidencementioning
confidence: 99%
“…However, despite the theoretical importance of this issue, little research has simultaneously examined the perception of race and expression. Instead, the majority of previous research has examined these cues in isolation, independent of one another; research on race perception typically examines responses to faces with emotionally neutral expressions (e.g., Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002;Levin, 2000;Greenwald & Banaji, 1995), and research on emotional expression often examines responses to faces depicting only one race (typically Caucasian) (e.g., Eimer, Holmes, & McGlone, 2003;Hansen & Hansen, 1988). While it is necessary to investigate the independent effects of these cues, they are typically perceived simultaneously, making it important to understand how the cues are perceived in combination throughout processing.…”
mentioning
confidence: 99%