Research indicates that individuals can prospectively predict biases they will show on the implicit-association test (IAT). The present study uses the Quadruple process model to analyze data from Hahn, Judd, Hirsh, and Blair to investigate which cognitive mechanisms people reflect on when predicting their racial bias scores on the IAT. The Quadruple process model reveals that a combination of activated associations and self-regulatory control best explains what participants report when they predict their biases on the IAT. Furthermore, it appears to be specifically the total activation of positive attitudes toward Whites and negative attitudes toward minorities rather than negative attitudes toward minorities alone, that participants use to make their predictions.
American Presidency Project. (2016, September26). Presidential debate at Hofstra University in Hempstead, New York. Santa Barbara: University of California at Santa Barbara. Retrieved from http://www.presidency.ucsb.edu/debates.php
2.
BatesD.MaechlerM.BolkerB.WalkerS. (2015). Fitting linear mixed-effects models using lme4. Journal of Statistical Software, 67, 1-48.
3.
BeerJ. S.StallenM.LombardoM. V.GonsalkoraleK.CunninghamW. A.ShermanJ. W. (2008). The Quadruple process model approach to examining the neural underpinnings of prejudice. NeuroImage, 43, 775-783.
4.
BlairI. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6, 242-261.
5.
BlantonH.JaccardJ. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27-41.
6.
BuchananT. (2016). Self-report measures of executive function problems correlate with personality, not performance-based executive function measures, in nonclinical samples. Psychological Assessment, 28, 372-385.
7.
BurkeC. T. (2015). Process dissociation models in racial bias research: Updating the analytic method and integrating with signal detection approaches. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 18, 402-434.
8.
CalanchiniJ.ShermanJ. W. (2013). Implicit attitudes reflect associative, non-associative, and non-attitudinal processes. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 7, 654-667.
9.
CalanchiniJ.ShermanJ. W.KlauerK. C.FerrerE. (2017). An empirical validation of the Quadruple process model of implicit attitudes against alternate, theoretically defensible specifications. Retrieved from PsyArXiv. doi:10.17605/OSF.IO/7B6NZ
10.
CameronC. D.PayneB. K.KnobeJ. (2010). Do theories of implicit race bias change moral judgments?Social Justice Research, 23, 272-289.
CohenJ. (1988). Statistical power analysis for the behavioral sciences (2nd ed.). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Erlbaum.
13.
ConreyF. R.ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.HugenbergK.GroomC. J. (2005). Separating multiple processes in implicit social cognition: The Quad model of implicit task performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 469-487.
14.
CressieN.PardoL.PardoM. C. (2003). Size and power considerations for testing loglinear models using φ-divergence test statistics. Statistica Sinica, 13, 555-570.
15.
DiamondA. (2013). Executive functions. Annual Review of Psychology, 64, 135-168.
FaulF.ErdfelderE.BuchnerA.LangA. (2009). Statistical power analyses using G*Power 3.1: Tests for correlation and regression analyses. Behavior Research Methods, 41, 1149-1160.
18.
GawronskiB.BodenhausenG. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731.
19.
GawronskiB.HofmannW.WilburC. J. (2006). Are “implicit” attitudes unconscious?Consciousness and Cognition, 15, 485-499.
20.
GawronskiB.SritharanR. (2010). Formation, change, and contextualization of mental associations: Determinants and principles of variations in implicit measures. In GawronskiB.PayneB. K. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and applications (pp. 216-240). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
21.
GoldhillO. (2018). “Implicit bias” tests help people feel morally superior, even when their results show bias. Retrieved from https://qz.com/1236594/
22.
GonsalkoraleK.ShermanJ. W.KlauerK. C. (2013). Measures of implicit attitudes may conceal differences in implicit associations: The case of antiaging bias. Social Psychological & Personality Science, 5, 271-278.
23.
GreenwaldA. G.McGheeD. E.SchwartzJ. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit social cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480.
24.
GreenwaldA. G.NosekB. A.BanajiM. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197-216.
25.
GreenwaldA. G.PettigrewT. F. (2014). With malice toward none and charity for some. American Psychologist, 69, 669-684.
26.
HahnA.GawronskiB. (in press). Facing one’s implicit biases: From awareness to acknowledgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. Retrieved from https://osf.io/n58tv/
27.
HahnA.JuddC. M.HirshH. K.BlairI. V. (2014). Awareness of implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, 1369-1392.
HolroydJ. (2012). Responsibility for implicit bias. Journal of Social Philosophy, 43, 274-306.
30.
JostJ. T.BanajiM. R.NosekB. A. (2004). A decade of system justification theory: Accumulated evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of the status quo. Political Psychology, 25, 881-919.
31.
KlauerK. C. (2010). Hierarchical multinomial processing tree models: A latent-trait approach. Psychometrika, 75, 70-98.
32.
KlauerK. C.SchmitzF.Teige-MocigembaS.VossA. (2010). Understanding the role of executive control in the implicit association test: Why flexible people have small IAT effects. The Quarterly Journal of Experimental Psychology, 63, 595-619.
33.
MonteithM. J.MarkA. Y. (2005). Changing one’s prejudiced ways: Awareness, affect, and self-regulation. European Review of Social Psychology, 16, 113-154.
34.
MoshagenM. (2010). MultiTree: A computer program for the analysis of multinomial processing tree models. Behavior Research Methods, 42, 42-54.
35.
MoskowitzG. B.GollwitzerP. M.WaselW.SchaalB. (1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167-184.
36.
OlsonM. A.FazioR. H. (2008). Implicit and explicit measures of attitudes: The perspective of the MODE model. In PettyR. E.FazioR. H.BrinolP. (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 19-63). New York, NY: Psychology Press.
37.
OnyeadorI. N.ShapiroJ.HendersonK.DaumeyerN.RichesonJ. (February, 2018). Presumed unintentional: The ironic effects of implicit bias framing on whites’ perceptions of discrimination. In DaumeyerN.OnyeadorI. (Chairs), Rethinking implicit and explicit bias in contemporary American society. Paper presented at the 19th Annual Meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Atlanta, GA.
38.
PayneB. K. (2005). Conceptualizing control in social cognition: How executive functioning modulates the expression of automatic stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 89, 488-503.
39.
PayneB. K.BisharaA. J. (2009). An integrative review of process dissociation and related models in social cognition. European Review of Social Psychology, 20(1), 272-314.
40.
PayneB. K.GawronskiB. (2010). A history of implicit social cognition: Where is it coming from? Where is it now? Where is it going? In GawronskiB.PayneB. K. (Eds.), Handbook of implicit social cognition: Measurement, theory, and application (pp. 1-15). New York, NY: Guilford Press.
41.
PhelpsE. A.O’ConnorK. J.CunninghamW. A.FunayamaE. S.GatenbyJ. C.GoreJ. C.BanajiM. R. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729-738.
R Core Team. (2018). R: A language and environment for statistical computing. Vienna, Austria: R Foundation for Statistical Computing.
44.
RedfordL.RatliffK. A. (2016). Perceived moral responsibility for attitude-based discrimination. British Journal of Social Psychology, 55, 279-296.
45.
RichesonJ. A.SheltonJ. N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: Effects of interracial contact on executive function. Psychological Science, 14, 287-290.
46.
ShermanJ. W.CalanchiniJ.SchmidtK. (July, 2017). Intergroup bias (generally) reflects more positivity than negativity. Paper presented at the 18th General Meeting of the European Association of Social Psychology, Granada, Spain.
47.
ShermanJ. W.GawronskiB.GonsalkoraleK.HugenbergK.AllenT. J.GroomC. J. (2008). The self-regulation of automatic associations and behavioral impulses. Psychological Review, 115, 314-325.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
