Dissociating automatic associations: Comparing two implicit measurements of race bias
Weak correspondence across different implicit bias tasks may arise from the contribution of unique forms of automatic and controlled processes to response behavior. Here, we examined the correspondence between estimates of automatic and controlled processing derived from two sequential priming tasks...
Gespeichert in:
Veröffentlicht in: | European journal of social psychology 2020-06, Vol.50 (4), p.876-888 |
---|---|
Hauptverfasser: | , , |
Format: | Artikel |
Sprache: | eng |
Schlagworte: | |
Online-Zugang: | Volltext |
Tags: |
Tag hinzufügen
Keine Tags, Fügen Sie den ersten Tag hinzu!
|
container_end_page | 888 |
---|---|
container_issue | 4 |
container_start_page | 876 |
container_title | European journal of social psychology |
container_volume | 50 |
creator | Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I. Scherer, Laura D. Bartholow, Bruce D. |
description | Weak correspondence across different implicit bias tasks may arise from the contribution of unique forms of automatic and controlled processes to response behavior. Here, we examined the correspondence between estimates of automatic and controlled processing derived from two sequential priming tasks with identical structure and timing designed to separately measure stereotypic (Weapons Identification Task; WIT) and evaluative (Affective Priming Task; APT) associations. Across two studies using predominantly White samples, three consistent patterns emerged in the data: (a) stereotypic bias was stronger for Black targets, whereas evaluative bias was stronger for White targets; (b) overall response accuracy bias correlated modestly across the two tasks; and (c) multinomial processing tree estimates of controlled processing corresponded much more strongly than estimates of automatic processing. These findings support models positing distinct learning and memory systems for different forms of race bias, and suggest that these differing forms contribute to estimates of automatic associations. |
doi_str_mv | 10.1002/ejsp.2655 |
format | Article |
fullrecord | <record><control><sourceid>proquest_pubme</sourceid><recordid>TN_cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7565860</recordid><sourceformat>XML</sourceformat><sourcesystem>PC</sourcesystem><sourcerecordid>2452097886</sourcerecordid><originalsourceid>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-e1c6d1dd97a31f391da5a8afe997f564a98c1002dc6709d455f2a9048bfb81fd3</originalsourceid><addsrcrecordid>eNp1kc1rFTEUxYMo9lld-A_IgBtdTHszmXy5EORZvygoaNfhvkxS85iZjMmMpf-9GV9bVHBxyeXmx-EcDiFPKZxQgObU7fN00gjO75ENBa3rMs19sgFoRd1I2RyRRznvAUALwR6SI8ZAUibUhly8DTlHG3AO42WFyxyHstoKb69xzK-qbRwmTCsxX8UqDFMfbJirwWFekhvcOOcq-iqhddUuYH5MHnjss3ty8x6Ti3dn37Yf6vPP7z9u35zXtm0Zrx21oqNdpyUy6pmmHXJU6J3W0nPRolZ2DdhZIUF3Lee-QQ2t2vmdor5jx-T1QXdadoPrbDGSsDdTCgOmaxMxmL9_xvDdXMafRnLBlYAi8OJGIMUfi8uzGUK2ru9xdHHJpml5A1oqJQr6_B90H5c0lniFAiU1aEYL9fJA2RRzTs7fmaFg1ixmLcusZRX22Z_u78jbdgpwegCuQu-u_69kzj59_fJb8hdOYKDf</addsrcrecordid><sourcetype>Open Access Repository</sourcetype><iscdi>true</iscdi><recordtype>article</recordtype><pqid>2408790931</pqid></control><display><type>article</type><title>Dissociating automatic associations: Comparing two implicit measurements of race bias</title><source>Sociological Abstracts</source><source>Access via Wiley Online Library</source><source>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</source><creator>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I. ; Scherer, Laura D. ; Bartholow, Bruce D.</creator><creatorcontrib>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I. ; Scherer, Laura D. ; Bartholow, Bruce D.</creatorcontrib><description>Weak correspondence across different implicit bias tasks may arise from the contribution of unique forms of automatic and controlled processes to response behavior. Here, we examined the correspondence between estimates of automatic and controlled processing derived from two sequential priming tasks with identical structure and timing designed to separately measure stereotypic (Weapons Identification Task; WIT) and evaluative (Affective Priming Task; APT) associations. Across two studies using predominantly White samples, three consistent patterns emerged in the data: (a) stereotypic bias was stronger for Black targets, whereas evaluative bias was stronger for White targets; (b) overall response accuracy bias correlated modestly across the two tasks; and (c) multinomial processing tree estimates of controlled processing corresponded much more strongly than estimates of automatic processing. These findings support models positing distinct learning and memory systems for different forms of race bias, and suggest that these differing forms contribute to estimates of automatic associations.</description><identifier>ISSN: 0046-2772</identifier><identifier>EISSN: 1099-0992</identifier><identifier>DOI: 10.1002/ejsp.2655</identifier><identifier>PMID: 33071368</identifier><language>eng</language><publisher>England: Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</publisher><subject>affective priming ; Associations ; Automatic processes ; Bias ; implicit race bias ; Memory ; multiple memory systems ; Priming ; process dissociation procedure ; Race ; Racial bias ; Racism ; Response bias ; Stereotypes ; Weapons ; Weapons Identification task</subject><ispartof>European journal of social psychology, 2020-06, Vol.50 (4), p.876-888</ispartof><rights>2019 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.</rights><lds50>peer_reviewed</lds50><oa>free_for_read</oa><woscitedreferencessubscribed>false</woscitedreferencessubscribed><citedby>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-e1c6d1dd97a31f391da5a8afe997f564a98c1002dc6709d455f2a9048bfb81fd3</citedby><cites>FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-e1c6d1dd97a31f391da5a8afe997f564a98c1002dc6709d455f2a9048bfb81fd3</cites><orcidid>0000-0002-9181-9710</orcidid></display><links><openurl>$$Topenurl_article</openurl><openurlfulltext>$$Topenurlfull_article</openurlfulltext><thumbnail>$$Tsyndetics_thumb_exl</thumbnail><linktopdf>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/pdf/10.1002%2Fejsp.2655$$EPDF$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktopdf><linktohtml>$$Uhttps://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/full/10.1002%2Fejsp.2655$$EHTML$$P50$$Gwiley$$H</linktohtml><link.rule.ids>230,314,780,784,885,1417,27924,27925,30999,33774,45574,45575</link.rule.ids><backlink>$$Uhttps://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/33071368$$D View this record in MEDLINE/PubMed$$Hfree_for_read</backlink></links><search><creatorcontrib>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherer, Laura D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartholow, Bruce D.</creatorcontrib><title>Dissociating automatic associations: Comparing two implicit measurements of race bias</title><title>European journal of social psychology</title><addtitle>Eur J Soc Psychol</addtitle><description>Weak correspondence across different implicit bias tasks may arise from the contribution of unique forms of automatic and controlled processes to response behavior. Here, we examined the correspondence between estimates of automatic and controlled processing derived from two sequential priming tasks with identical structure and timing designed to separately measure stereotypic (Weapons Identification Task; WIT) and evaluative (Affective Priming Task; APT) associations. Across two studies using predominantly White samples, three consistent patterns emerged in the data: (a) stereotypic bias was stronger for Black targets, whereas evaluative bias was stronger for White targets; (b) overall response accuracy bias correlated modestly across the two tasks; and (c) multinomial processing tree estimates of controlled processing corresponded much more strongly than estimates of automatic processing. These findings support models positing distinct learning and memory systems for different forms of race bias, and suggest that these differing forms contribute to estimates of automatic associations.</description><subject>affective priming</subject><subject>Associations</subject><subject>Automatic processes</subject><subject>Bias</subject><subject>implicit race bias</subject><subject>Memory</subject><subject>multiple memory systems</subject><subject>Priming</subject><subject>process dissociation procedure</subject><subject>Race</subject><subject>Racial bias</subject><subject>Racism</subject><subject>Response bias</subject><subject>Stereotypes</subject><subject>Weapons</subject><subject>Weapons Identification task</subject><issn>0046-2772</issn><issn>1099-0992</issn><fulltext>true</fulltext><rsrctype>article</rsrctype><creationdate>2020</creationdate><recordtype>article</recordtype><sourceid>7QJ</sourceid><sourceid>BHHNA</sourceid><recordid>eNp1kc1rFTEUxYMo9lld-A_IgBtdTHszmXy5EORZvygoaNfhvkxS85iZjMmMpf-9GV9bVHBxyeXmx-EcDiFPKZxQgObU7fN00gjO75ENBa3rMs19sgFoRd1I2RyRRznvAUALwR6SI8ZAUibUhly8DTlHG3AO42WFyxyHstoKb69xzK-qbRwmTCsxX8UqDFMfbJirwWFekhvcOOcq-iqhddUuYH5MHnjss3ty8x6Ti3dn37Yf6vPP7z9u35zXtm0Zrx21oqNdpyUy6pmmHXJU6J3W0nPRolZ2DdhZIUF3Lee-QQ2t2vmdor5jx-T1QXdadoPrbDGSsDdTCgOmaxMxmL9_xvDdXMafRnLBlYAi8OJGIMUfi8uzGUK2ru9xdHHJpml5A1oqJQr6_B90H5c0lniFAiU1aEYL9fJA2RRzTs7fmaFg1ixmLcusZRX22Z_u78jbdgpwegCuQu-u_69kzj59_fJb8hdOYKDf</recordid><startdate>202006</startdate><enddate>202006</enddate><creator>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I.</creator><creator>Scherer, Laura D.</creator><creator>Bartholow, Bruce D.</creator><general>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</general><scope>NPM</scope><scope>AAYXX</scope><scope>CITATION</scope><scope>7QJ</scope><scope>7U4</scope><scope>8BJ</scope><scope>BHHNA</scope><scope>DWI</scope><scope>FQK</scope><scope>JBE</scope><scope>WZK</scope><scope>7X8</scope><scope>5PM</scope><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9181-9710</orcidid></search><sort><creationdate>202006</creationdate><title>Dissociating automatic associations: Comparing two implicit measurements of race bias</title><author>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I. ; Scherer, Laura D. ; Bartholow, Bruce D.</author></sort><facets><frbrtype>5</frbrtype><frbrgroupid>cdi_FETCH-LOGICAL-c4435-e1c6d1dd97a31f391da5a8afe997f564a98c1002dc6709d455f2a9048bfb81fd3</frbrgroupid><rsrctype>articles</rsrctype><prefilter>articles</prefilter><language>eng</language><creationdate>2020</creationdate><topic>affective priming</topic><topic>Associations</topic><topic>Automatic processes</topic><topic>Bias</topic><topic>implicit race bias</topic><topic>Memory</topic><topic>multiple memory systems</topic><topic>Priming</topic><topic>process dissociation procedure</topic><topic>Race</topic><topic>Racial bias</topic><topic>Racism</topic><topic>Response bias</topic><topic>Stereotypes</topic><topic>Weapons</topic><topic>Weapons Identification task</topic><toplevel>peer_reviewed</toplevel><toplevel>online_resources</toplevel><creatorcontrib>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Scherer, Laura D.</creatorcontrib><creatorcontrib>Bartholow, Bruce D.</creatorcontrib><collection>PubMed</collection><collection>CrossRef</collection><collection>Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (pre-2017)</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences (IBSS)</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>International Bibliography of the Social Sciences</collection><collection>Sociological Abstracts (Ovid)</collection><collection>MEDLINE - Academic</collection><collection>PubMed Central (Full Participant titles)</collection><jtitle>European journal of social psychology</jtitle></facets><delivery><delcategory>Remote Search Resource</delcategory><fulltext>fulltext</fulltext></delivery><addata><au>Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I.</au><au>Scherer, Laura D.</au><au>Bartholow, Bruce D.</au><format>journal</format><genre>article</genre><ristype>JOUR</ristype><atitle>Dissociating automatic associations: Comparing two implicit measurements of race bias</atitle><jtitle>European journal of social psychology</jtitle><addtitle>Eur J Soc Psychol</addtitle><date>2020-06</date><risdate>2020</risdate><volume>50</volume><issue>4</issue><spage>876</spage><epage>888</epage><pages>876-888</pages><issn>0046-2772</issn><eissn>1099-0992</eissn><abstract>Weak correspondence across different implicit bias tasks may arise from the contribution of unique forms of automatic and controlled processes to response behavior. Here, we examined the correspondence between estimates of automatic and controlled processing derived from two sequential priming tasks with identical structure and timing designed to separately measure stereotypic (Weapons Identification Task; WIT) and evaluative (Affective Priming Task; APT) associations. Across two studies using predominantly White samples, three consistent patterns emerged in the data: (a) stereotypic bias was stronger for Black targets, whereas evaluative bias was stronger for White targets; (b) overall response accuracy bias correlated modestly across the two tasks; and (c) multinomial processing tree estimates of controlled processing corresponded much more strongly than estimates of automatic processing. These findings support models positing distinct learning and memory systems for different forms of race bias, and suggest that these differing forms contribute to estimates of automatic associations.</abstract><cop>England</cop><pub>Wiley Subscription Services, Inc</pub><pmid>33071368</pmid><doi>10.1002/ejsp.2655</doi><tpages>13</tpages><orcidid>https://orcid.org/0000-0002-9181-9710</orcidid><oa>free_for_read</oa></addata></record> |
fulltext | fulltext |
identifier | ISSN: 0046-2772 |
ispartof | European journal of social psychology, 2020-06, Vol.50 (4), p.876-888 |
issn | 0046-2772 1099-0992 |
language | eng |
recordid | cdi_pubmedcentral_primary_oai_pubmedcentral_nih_gov_7565860 |
source | Sociological Abstracts; Access via Wiley Online Library; Applied Social Sciences Index & Abstracts (ASSIA) |
subjects | affective priming Associations Automatic processes Bias implicit race bias Memory multiple memory systems Priming process dissociation procedure Race Racial bias Racism Response bias Stereotypes Weapons Weapons Identification task |
title | Dissociating automatic associations: Comparing two implicit measurements of race bias |
url | https://sfx.bib-bvb.de/sfx_tum?ctx_ver=Z39.88-2004&ctx_enc=info:ofi/enc:UTF-8&ctx_tim=2024-12-21T04%3A17%3A49IST&url_ver=Z39.88-2004&url_ctx_fmt=infofi/fmt:kev:mtx:ctx&rfr_id=info:sid/primo.exlibrisgroup.com:primo3-Article-proquest_pubme&rft_val_fmt=info:ofi/fmt:kev:mtx:journal&rft.genre=article&rft.atitle=Dissociating%20automatic%20associations:%20Comparing%20two%20implicit%20measurements%20of%20race%20bias&rft.jtitle=European%20journal%20of%20social%20psychology&rft.au=Volpert%E2%80%90Esmond,%20Hannah%20I.&rft.date=2020-06&rft.volume=50&rft.issue=4&rft.spage=876&rft.epage=888&rft.pages=876-888&rft.issn=0046-2772&rft.eissn=1099-0992&rft_id=info:doi/10.1002/ejsp.2655&rft_dat=%3Cproquest_pubme%3E2452097886%3C/proquest_pubme%3E%3Curl%3E%3C/url%3E&disable_directlink=true&sfx.directlink=off&sfx.report_link=0&rft_id=info:oai/&rft_pqid=2408790931&rft_id=info:pmid/33071368&rfr_iscdi=true |