Implicit attitude measures reveal prejudice explicit self-reports miss

Evidence

These approaches are supported by new methodologies, including response latency techniques, such as the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) that assess reactions that may be unconscious and automatic, and thus are not susceptible to impression management strategies. Because this task measures the time it takes people to make decisions about pairs of stimuli (e.g., men and agentic traits) rather than directly asking people their opinions, the IAT (along with similar methods) has the advantage of overcoming people’s inability (or unwillingness) to report their attitudes and beliefs (see also Fiske, ch. 3 this volume; Batson & Stocks, ch. 25 this volume). Thus, implicit measures provide unique insights into the psychology of prejudice beyond the direct, explicit measures that were the tools of social psychology when The Nature of Prejudice was written. — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759

Categorization

• XREF: Methods advance corroborates the vault’s empirical-grounding aim — modern prejudice findings rest on techniques unavailable to Allport in 1954. — connects to: Social psychology long treated attitudes and stereotypes as consciously accessible via self-report. — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes,…, 7; Measuring stereotypes indirectly reveals prejudice explicit surveys miss — Anthony G. Greenwald and Mahzarin R. Banaji, Implicit Social Cognition: Attitudes,…, 194
• QUESTION: Whether implicit-explicit divergence proves unconscious bias or merely measurement noise remains contested — worth investigating.
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — , Rudman, Laurie A - On the Nature of…, 759