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...

Ausführliche Beschreibung

Gespeichert in:
Bibliographische Detailangaben
Veröffentlicht in:European journal of social psychology 2020-06, Vol.50 (4), p.876-888
Hauptverfasser: Volpert‐Esmond, Hannah I., Scherer, Laura D., Bartholow, Bruce D.
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 &amp; 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 &amp; Sons, Ltd.</rights><rights>Copyright © 2020 John Wiley &amp; 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 &amp; 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