lskjgks

7/23/2019 lskjgks

1/6

Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2005, 46, 361366

2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 GarsingtonRoad, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564.

BlackwellPublishing,Ltd.

Personality and Social Sciences

The association between implicit and explicit prejudice: the moderating

role of motivation to control prejudiced reactions

NAZAR AKRAMI and BO EKEHAMMAR

Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden

Akrami, N. & Ekehammar, B. (2005). The association between implicit and explicit prejudice: the moderating role of motivation to control

prejudiced reactions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology

, 46

, 361366.

The main aim of the present research was to assess the relationship between implicit and explicit ethnic attitude measures and to examine the

impact of motivation to control prejudiced reactions on this relation. Implicit ethnic prejudice was assessed by a response latency measure,

and a self-report modern prejudice scale was used to assess explicit prejudice. The results showed that an association between implicit and

explicit attitudes was observed only when the explicit attitude measure was corrected for motivational bias. The findings are discussed in relation

to previous research reporting either association or dissociation between implicit and explicit attitude measures.

Key words:

Implicit prejudice, explicit prejudice, prejudice control.

Nazar Akrami, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, SE-751 42 Uppsala, Sweden. Tel: +46 18 471 15 25; fax: +46 18 471

21 23

; e-mail: [email protected]

INTRODUCTION

Explicit and implicit ethnic attitudes

Greenwald and Banaji (1995) have emphasized the importance

of the distinction between explicit and implicit measures of

attitudes. Explicit attitudes are slow and intentional and

operate in a conscious mode. They can be measured by tra-

ditional self-report questionnaires. Implicit attitudes, in con-

trast, are fast and automatic and operate without intention,

often in an unconscious mode. They are assessed using indirect

measures, like response latency.

Important in the present context is the relationship

between implicit and explicit attitudes. Implicit and explicit

attitudes can be expected to be associated because of their

common root in peoples personal and cultural experiences

and socialization history (e.g., Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson,

Johnson & Howard, 1997) or because implicit attitudes

are in fact internalized explicit attitudes (e.g., Brauer, Wasel

& Niedenthal, 2000). However, Devine (1989) argued that

because stereotypes, unlike personal beliefs, are culturally

shared, they can be automatically activated. Thus, a person

might hold a positive attitude toward a social group and at

the same time automatically activate negative stereotypes

on the mere presence of a stereotyped group member.

Consequently, implicit measures (like response latencies) and

explicit measures (like scores on self-report scales) of ethnic

prejudice might be dissociated. Given this state of affairs, to

what extent are implicit attitudes reflected in explicit attitude

measures? This issue is addressed in the present paper.

Since the 1970s, social psychologists have questioned the

traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaires ability to accurately

reflect prejudicial attitudes that people may harbor against

minority groups (e.g., McConahay, Hardee & Batts, 1981).

This suspicion was motivated because of the reactivity biases

due to, for example, social desirability. Crosby, Bromley, and

Saxe (1980), for example, concluded that anti-Black senti-

ments are much more prevalent among White Americans

than the survey data lead one to expect (p. 546). Further, it

has been argued that the prevailing sociopolitical climate

(Katz & Hass, 1988) and peoples tendency to present them-

selves as non-prejudiced and socially or politically correct

may prevent the expression of racial/ethnic prejudice

openly (Crosby et al.

, 1980; see also Akrami, Ekehammar &

Araya, 2000; Franco & Maass, 1999; Pettigrew & Meertens,

1995). Consequently, two types of scales measuring racial/

ethnic prejudice have been suggested; one (old-fashioned)

tapping direct or open, and another (modern) tapping

covert or subtle racial/ethnic prejudice (e.g., McConahay

1986). One example is the old-fashioned and the modern

racism (the Modern Racism Scale) measures suggested by

McConahay (1986). More recently, however, some researchers

have suggested that, like traditional (i.e., old-fashioned)

self-report measures, the modern measures might be equally

reactive and susceptible to social desirability and self-

presentational concerns (cf. Brauer, Wasel & Niedenthal, 2000;

Dovidio et al

., 1997; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton & Williams,

1995).

Important in the present context is the study of Fazio et al.

(1995) where a dissociation was found between a measure of

explicit prejudice (the Modern Racism Scale) and a measure

of implicit prejudice based on response latency. However,

Fazio and his colleagues found an interaction between the

7/23/2019 lskjgks

2/6

362

N. Akrami and B. Ekehammar

Scand J Psychol 46 (2005)

2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd.

participants Modern Racism Scale scores and their motivation

to control prejudiced reactions. On this basis, they argued

that the resulting dissociation was due to the reactivity of

the Modern Racism Scale. Similarly, Dovidio et al

. (1997),

employing a response-latency-based measure of implicit atti-

tudes, found a significant relationship between this measureand the Modern Racism Scale scores in one of their three

experiments. Like Fazio et al

. (1995), Dovidio et al

. (1997)

questioned the non-reactivity of the Modern Racism

Scale. Regardless of the method employed for measuring

implicit prejudice, researchers seem to agree that the lack

of association between implicit and explicit prejudice might

be due to the bias in the explicit measures (cf. Brauer et al.

,

2000).

Assessing implicit ethnic attitudes

A widely used method for assessing implicit attitudes, besides

the Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee& Schwartz, 1998), is the adjective evaluation task (Fazio,

Sanbonmatsu, Powell & Kardes, 1986). Like the IAT, a typ-

ical feature of this response-latency-based technique is that

participants are first exposed to a prime (e.g., a facial photograph

of a European-American or an African-American) and then

a target word (e.g., either a positive or a negative adjective).

Participants are asked to indicate the valence (positive/

negative) of the presented target word. The response latency

is then measured. The associated evaluation of the prime in

the participants memory is assumed to facilitate or inhibit

participants response.

The adjective evaluation technique is a sensitive measure

of implicit attitudes and it has been shown to provide anaccurate test of the automaticity of evaluation (Fazio et al

.,

1995). Therefore, in the present study, we employ this tech-

nique to measure implicit ethnic prejudice, and following

Fazio et al

. (1995) and Ekehammar, Akrami and Araya

(2003), we use photographs to automatically activate ethnic

stereotypes.

Assessing explicit ethnic attitudes

As mentioned above, explicit attitudes are measured by

self-report instruments. One such instrument for measuring

racial/ethnic beliefs is McConahay et al

.s (1981) Modern

Racism Scale, which is probably the most frequently used

instrument for assessing racial/ethnic beliefs, mainly toward

African-Americans. Since its introduction, though, the scale

has received much criticism, for example for its reactivity

(e.g., Fazio et al

., 1995). However, there have been attempts

to develop valid measures of racial/ethnic beliefs, not only

toward a specific minority group (African-Americans), but

toward minority groups in general (e.g., immigrants). One

such scale is the Modern Racial Prejudice Scale (Akrami

et al

., 2000), developed for a European context, which we

use in the present study.

Motivation to control prejudiced reactions

Due to the nature of prejudiced beliefs, scales that measure

these beliefs can be influenced by different factors, for example,

peoples motivation to control prejudiced reactions (e.g.,

Dunton & Fazio, 1997; Plant & Devine, 1998). Plant andDevine (1998), for example, found that the expressed pre-

judiced beliefs varied with peoples motivation to control their

prejudice and whether these beliefs were expressed in private

or public. Further, Dunton and Fazio (1997) found that the

expression of racial/ethnic prejudice on self-report measures

was moderated by the extent to which participants were

motivated to inhibit their prejudiced responses. More speci-

fically, Dunton and Fazio (1997; Fazio et al

., 1995) found

that individuals with higher motivation to control their

prejudice scored lower on the explicit prejudice measure,

although their implicit attitude scores were high. However,

for the low-motivated group the implicit and explicit attitude

measures were congruent. Emphasizing the importanceof the impact of motivational factors on the measurement

of explicit prejudice, we suggest that these factors should be

further investigated.

Aim and hypotheses

The primary aim of the present research was to examine

whether implicit and explicit attitudes are associated or not.

To this end, we employ the adjective evaluation task as an

implicit attitude measure, and the Modern Racial Prejudice

Scale (Akrami et al

., 2000) as an explicit attitude measure.

Moreover, we analyze the impact of motivation to control

ones prejudiced reactions on the explicit attitude measure.We hypothesized that a negative correlation between moti-

vation to control ones prejudice and scores on the Modern

Racial Prejudice Scale would indicate the reactivity of the

scale.

More important, we examined what happens if the scores

on Modern Racial Prejudice Scale are corrected for motiva-

tional biases. We argue that an association between explicit

and implicit ethnic attitude measures might be revealed if

the scores on the Modern Racial Prejudice Scale are cor-

rected for the motivation to control ones prejudice. Specific-

ally, we hypothesized that, if the scores on Modern Racial

Prejudice Scale are negatively correlated with motivation to

control ones prejudice, no association between explicit and

implicit racial/ethnic attitudes will be found. However, if the

explicit attitude scores are corrected for the motivation to

control prejudiced reactions, an association between explicit

and implicit racial/ethnic attitudes will be found.

METHODS

Participants

The participants were 42 Swedish students (two of which had

non-Swedish origin), 19 non-psychology university students and

7/23/2019 lskjgks

3/6


Implicit and explicit prejudice

363


23 students at the local authority-administered adult education, a

highly heterogeneous group with various backgrounds who can be

expected to vary on ethnic prejudice, among other things. There were

20 women and 22 men between 20 and 43 years (

M

= 26.8 years) of

age. The university students took part in the experiment for course

credit whereas the other participants received cinema vouchers

(equivalent to &

7).

Stimulus materials

The primes consisted of 132 color photographs of faces (head shots,

6

5 cm) taken from the Internet. Sixty-six of these represented faces

(33 men and 33 women) that had foreign-looking features (i.e., dark

hair, dark eyes, and sometimes dark skin) and 66 had a paler and

blonder appearance and represented Swedish faces (33 men and 33

women). The immigrant photographs were chosen based on a previ-

ous study of which particular national categories people associate

with the word immigrant in Sweden (Akrami, Ekehammar & Araya,

2003). The photographs represented the most frequent national

categories obtained in that study (e.g., Asian, African, Middle East,

South American, and Mediterranean). All photographs were modified

to have a white background and identical size.

Apparatus

The experiment was conducted using an AST Premmia GX P/133

computer with a NEC MultiSync XP 21 monitor run with a resolu-

tion of 1024

768 and 75 Hz refresh rate. The computer monitor

was controlled by the Authorware 3.1 program.

Procedure

On arrival, participants were greeted by the experimenter and were

told that the main purpose of the experiments was to examine vari-

ous memory and language phenomena. The experimental procedure

was adopted from Fazio et al

. (1995) and consisted of six phases,described below, where the fourth phase involved the actual priming

task.

The first phase

was run to obtain baseline data and involved the

presentation of words on the computer monitor. Participants were

led to believe that this phase involved a language-testing task

where the speed for assigning word-valence was measured. The par-

ticipant had to press a key labeled negative

orpositive

as quickly as

possible to indicate her/ his response to the valence of the word. The

list of words comprised 24 adjectives; 12 negative (

aggressive, trouble-

some, stupid, deceitful, lazy, impolite, passive, careless, disturbed, gloomy,

boring, disgusting

) and 12 positive (

pleasant, decent, intelligent, loyal,

reliable, tidy, smart, kind, sound, nice, handsome, honest

). Participants

were instructed to respond as fast and accurately as possible. Each

adjective was presented twice and remained on the center of the

screen until the participant responded. The presentation order of theadjectives was randomized for each participant. A 2.5 s interval

separated each trial. Response latency for each trial (from adjective

onset to response) was recorded to the nearest millisecond.

The second phase

(face-memory-testing) ostensibly involved the

ability to memorize faces for later recognition. The participants task

was simply to attend to the faces presented on the computer screen.

They were told that they would be given a recognition task involving

these faces subsequently. The stimuli were 16 immigrant and Swedish

facial photographs (four male and four female faces from each

group). Each photograph was presented twice, and remained on the

screen for 5 s. A 2.5 s interval separated each presentation. The

presentation order of the photographs was randomized for each

participant.

The third phase

involved a recognition test of the previously pre-

sented faces. The photographs from the previous phase and 16 new

filler photographs were presented on the computer monitor. Particip-

ants were told to press the key labeled yes

if the face had appeared,

and no

if the face had not appeared in the previous phase. Each face

remained on the screen for 5 s and a 2.5-s interval separated each

trial. The participants responses were recorded.

The fourth phase

involved the actual priming task. Participants were

led to believe that this phase involved a combination of a language

and a face-memory task. Twenty-four Swedish (12 men and

12 women) and 24 immigrant (12 men and 12 women) facial photo-

graphs (not used in the previous phases) served as primes. The 24

adjectives from the first phase were used as target adjectives. On any

given trial, a prime photograph was presented for 315 ms, followed

by a 135-ms interval before the onset of the target adjective. A 2.5-s

interval separated each trial. Four blocks of trials were presented.

Each block consisted of 48 trials in which the primes appeared once,

followed by one of the adjectives. Over the course of the four blocks,

each prime was paired, randomly, with two positive and two negative

adjectives. The instruction and procedures were identical, with one

exception, to those of the first phase. Participants were told that it

was important to attend to the presented faces because they would

be asked to recognize these faces later. The participants responsesregarding the valence of the adjective, and the response latencies

were recorded to the nearest millisecond.

The fifth phase

involved a recognition test of the faces presented in

the previous phase. Those photographs and 48 new filler photo-

graphs were presented on the computer monitor. Participants were

told to press the key labeled yes

if the face had appeared, and no

if

the face had not appeared in the previous phase. Each photograph

remained on the screen for 5 s. A 2.5-s interval separated each trial.

The sixth and final phase

involved attractiveness ratings of the

facial photographs presented in the fourth phase. Participants were

told that we were interested in assessing the extent to which the

attractiveness of a face had an effect on their performance on previous

tasks (in the fourth phase). They were instructed to press one of the ten

keys labeled 1 (

not attractive

) to 10 (

very attractive

) to indicate their

rating of the attractiveness of each face. Each photograph remainedon the screen until the participant had made her or his response.

After completing this task, participants were, seemingly, thanked

and dismissed. Before leaving the experiment room, however, parti-

cipants were asked if they had a few minutes time to spare to help a

research colleague from another university. They were told that a

colleague was doing research in social psychology and was currently

collecting material for his research. The experimenter informed them

that we had promised to help him in collecting some of the data in

our laboratory. Participants were then guided to another room and

asked to complete a booklet containing the Modern Racial Prejudice

Scale, and a Swedish version of the Motivation to Control Prejudiced

Reactions Scale.

The Modern Racial Prejudice Scale was constructed by Akrami

et al

. (2000) for measuring modern (covert, subtle, symbolic) racial/

ethnic prejudice in a Scandinavian context following the item con-tents of McConahays (1986) Modern Racism Scale. Reliability and

validity data for the scale are provided by Akrami et al.

(2000). The

scale contains 9 items (example: Discrimination against immigrants is

no longer a problem in Sweden

). The scale had an internal consistency

reliability (Cronbachs alpha) of 0.78 in the present sample. The

Motivation to Control Prejudiced Reactions Scale was adapted to a

Swedish context from Dunton and Fazio (1997) and consisted of

7 items. The scale had a reliability of 0.70 in the present sample and

includes such items as In todays society its important that one not be

perceived as prejudiced in any manner

and If I have a prejudice thought

or feeling, I keep it to myself

. The answers on the two scales were

indicated on a 5-step scale ranging from Do not agree at all

(1) to

Agree fully

(5). In order not to arouse participants suspicion about

7/23/2019 lskjgks

4/6

364




the main purpose of the study the scale items were embedded in

items concerning general subjects (e.g., The social insurance system

should be further developed

.).

Participants were given a pre-paid envelope addressed to our alleged

colleague at another university. The experimenter informed parti-

cipants to put it in a mailbox after completion and left the room.

However, on their way to the mailbox the experimenter informed the

participants that they could hand him the envelope and he could

himself put it in the mailbox.

None of the participants reported any suspicion about any part of

the experiment, or noted any relation between the experiment and

the booklet containing the Modern Racial Prejudice Scale and the

Motivation to Control Prejudiced Reactions Scale. Participants were

debriefed, thanked, and dismissed.

Calculation of response latencies

For each participant, baseline latency for each adjective was calcul-

ated from the average of the two presentations of the adjective in the

first phase. The response latencies for each target adjective (presented

after the prime) were subtracted from the baseline. For every prime

(face photograph), there were two negative and two positive targetadjectives. We calculated the average response latency for the positive

and the negative adjectives. Further, for each participant, average

positive and negative response latencies for Swedish and immigrant

primes were then calculated.

If a prime has a negative implicit association, its presentation

should inhibit (slow) responses to positive adjectives and facilitate

(speed up) the responses to the negative adjectives (Fazio et al.

, 1986,

1995). Thus, a high response latency (slower response) on negative

adjectives would indicate a positive attitude. That is, the participant

has a weak association between the specific prime and the negative

adjective. A high response latency (slower response) on positive

adjectives, on the other hand, indicates a negative attitude. That is,

the participant has a weak association between the specific prime

and the positive adjective.

To simplify the analyses, the positive and negative response laten-

cies were combined to a single negativity index for each prime group

(immigrant and Swedish). The index was calculated by (a) reversing

the negative response latencies, and (b) taking the sum of negative

and positive response latencies for every participant. Finally, we

created a single measure of implicit negativity by subtracting the

negative implicit attitude scores to Swedish primes from the negative

implicit attitudes scores to immigrant primes. We will refer to this

measure as Implicit Ethnic Prejudice, where higher scores indicate

higher negativity toward immigrants.

Response errors that involved responding positive when a negat-

ive target word was presented, and negative when a positive target

word was presented, were disregarded. There were 33 response errors

to the negative and 21 to the positive adjective targets.

To reduce the skewness associated with response latency data, the

response latencies are usually subjected to a logarithmic transforma-

tion (e.g., Blair & Banaji, 1996). In the present study, there were nodifferences between the results for logarithmically transformed and

non-transformed data. Therefore, and for simplicity, we chose to

present the non-transformed results.

Correction of explicit measures

To investigate the possibility that the scores on the Modern Racial

Prejudice Scale may be influenced by the motivation to control ones

prejudice, the Modern Racial Prejudice Scale scores were regressed

on the Motivation to Control Prejudiced Reactions Scale scores (see

Forsman, 1993; Jackson, 1967). The residuals for the Modern Racial

Prejudice Scale scores were calculated for each participant.

RESULTS

Control analyses

Outliers.

Multivariate outliers, defined as those having stand-

ardized residuals above z

= 2.5 or below z

=

2.5, wereidentified (

n

= 2) and excluded from further analyses.

Detection data.

During the second and the fourth phase,

participants were instructed to attend to the presented

photographs for later recognition. Thus, the recognition data

served as a measure of the participants attention, thereby

testing whether participants had followed the instruction.

The mean proportion of correctly recognized photographs

was 0.98 in the third phase, and 0.87 in the fifth phase. This

was statistically higher than chance level (0.50), t

(39) =

130.52,p

< 0.001, and t

(39) = 34.24,p

< 0.001, respectively.

Attractiveness ratings.

To examine whether attractiveness ofthe presented faces had an impact on the response latencies,

participants were instructed to rate the faces on the photo-

graphs as to their attractiveness. Mean attractiveness for

immigrant (

M

= 4.80, SD

= 1.14) and Swedish (

M

= 4.56,

SD

= 1.17) facial photographs were computed. No signific-

ant difference was found, t

(39) = 1.76, p

= 0.09.

Main analyses

Correlation analysis.

A product-moment correlation was

computed between the Modern Racial Prejudice scores and

the scores on the Motivation to Control Prejudiced Re-actions Scale. The analysis revealed a significant correlation

between the scales (

r

=

0.51, p

= 0.001).

Implicit ethnic prejudice.

The Implicit Ethnic Prejudice scores

(

M

= 0.05, SD

= 0.11) were analyzed by conducting a one-

sample t

-test. The analysis revealed that the mean was sig-

nificantly different from zero, t

(39) = 2.99,p

< 0.005, which

shows that the participants displayed more negative implicit

attitudes when exposed to immigrant as compared to Swedish

faces.

Implicit and explicit ethnic prejudice.

To make possible com-

parisons with previous research (e.g., Devine, 1989; Lepore

& Brown, 1997; Kawakami, Dion & Dovidio, 1998), we first

examined whether participants with high and low explicit

racial/ethnic attitudes (also) differ in their implicit ethnic

attitudes. Based on the Modern Racial Prejudice scores (the

explicit attitude measure) participants were classified by

a median split as high and low on explicit prejudice. A one-

tailed t

-test revealed no significant difference in Implicit

Ethnic Prejudice between the groups (

M

= 0.06, SD

= 0.11, n

=

19 for high, and M

= 0.05, SD

= 0.11, n

= 21 for low), t

(38)

= 0.27,p

= 0.40. Thus, participants high and low in explicit

7/23/2019 lskjgks

5/6


Implicit and explicit prejudice

365


ethnic prejudice showed implicit ethnic prejudice to the same

extent. However, an analysis based on the corrected

Modern

Racial Prejudice scores revealed that the high-prejudice

group (

M

= 0.09, SD

= 0.09, n

= 20) showed significantly

more implicit ethnic prejudice than the low-prejudice group(

M

= 0.01, SD

= 0.11, n

= 20), t

(38) = 2.62, p

= 0.01 (see

Fig. 1).

In addition, and using a more appropriate method, product-

moment correlation analysis was conducted between the

continuous implicit and explicit prejudice scores. The analyses

revealed no significant relationship between the implicit and

the uncorrected

explicit scores (

r

= 0.20, p

= 0.22) whereas

the relationship was significant when using the corrected

explicit scores (

r

= 0.38, p

= 0.02). Thus, this pattern corre-

sponds to the analyses above using a median split on the

explicit scores.

DISCUSSION

With few exceptions (e.g., Dunton & Fazio, 1997; Fazio et al

.,

1995; Plant & Devine, 1998), previous research has not

emphasized the importance of examining the role of peoples

motivation to control prejudiced reactions when measuring

ethnic attitudes. Responding to this state of affairs, and

following Fazio et al

. (1995; Dunton & Fazio, 1997), we

investigated the role of motivation and its impact on the

association between implicit and explicit ethnic attitude

measures.

The results of our study revealed evidence for participants

implicit ethnic prejudice. Specifically, following immigrant

primes, response latencies were slow to positive adjectives and

fast to negative adjectives, as compared to Swedish primes.

In addition, the correlation analysis showed a strong negative

relationship between modern ethnic prejudice (our explicit

measure) and motivation to control prejudiced reactions, which

demonstrates the reactivity of the Modern Racial Prejudice

Scale and its sensitivity to motivational factors.

More important, the analyses revealed no significant cor-

relation between implicit and explicit ethnic prejudice, thus,

no association between explicit and implicit prejudice was

found. However, when the modern ethnic prejudice scores

were corrected for motivational biases, a significant correla-

tion (i.e., association) was obtained. The same pattern of

results was obtained when analyzing people high and low

(median-split) on explicit prejudice. Thus, the results con-

firm our hypothesis that motivation to control prejudiced

reactions has a moderating role in the association betweenexplicit and implicit prejudice. However, it should be noted

that the association between explicit and implicit prejudice

even after the correction was not especially strong. In accord

with Fazio et al

. (1995) and Dunton and Fazio (1997), we

can conclude that peoples motivation to control or conceal

prejudiced reactions seems to be an important factor to take

into account when studying the relationship or association

between implicit and explicit prejudice. Finally, it must be

added that other factors can also be of importance for the

implicit-explicit prejudice relationship, for example, whether

the outgroup is normatively protected against discrimination

or not (Franco & Maass, 1999).

Devine (1989), in her dissociation model, argued that aperson might hold a positive attitude toward a social group

and at the same time automatically activate negative stereo-

types on the mere presence of a stereotyped group member.

On this basis, Devine predicted that implicit and explicit

measures of ethnic prejudice might be dissociated and she

obtained empirical verification of this prediction as well.

Several studies, however, have shown that Devines assump-

tion might not be valid and various explanations have

been offered (e.g., Kawakami et al

., 1998; Lepore & Brown,

1997; Locke, MacLeod & Walker, 1994; Moskowitz, Wasel,

Gollwitzer & Schaal, 1999; Wittenbrink, Judd & Park, 1997).

Although the present study seems to speak against Devines

(1989) dissociation model as well, we argue that it providesconvergent evidence for automatic stereotype activation

and confirms the assumption that stereotypes are activated

automatically on the mere presence of a stereotyped group

member.

In conclusion, the present research has demonstrated the

utility of the adjective evaluation technique as a method for

measuring implicit prejudice and the sensitivity of self-report

instruments to motivational biases when measuring explicit

prejudice. Our findings lend additional support to the evidence

presented by Fazio et al.

(1995; Dunton & Fazio, 1997) for

the impact of motivation on the implicit-explicit prejudice

relation in a different social context, a European country, and

in relation to a different target group, immigrants in general.

However, to arrive at a firm conclusion and test the external

validity of the findings, the present study should be replic-

ated using non-student samples of participants. Finally, in

future research the importance of also exploring other vari-

ables that may moderate the relationship between implicit

and explicit prejudice must be emphasized.

This research was supported by Grant F0890/97 to Bo Ekehammar

from the Swedish Council for Research in the Humanities and

Social Sciences. The authors would like to thank Tadesse Araya for

his insightful comments on an earlier version of this article.

Fig. 1. Mean implicit prejudice for people with high and low scores

on uncorrected and corrected (for motivational bias) explicit prejudice.

7/23/2019 lskjgks

6/6

366




REFERENCES

Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B. & Araya, T. (2000). Classical and modern

racial prejudice: A study of attitudes toward immigrants in

Sweden. European Journal of Social Psychology

, 30

, 521532.

Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B. & Araya, T. (2003). Category and stereo-

type activation revisited: The intimate relation between category

and stereotypes. Manuscript submitted for publication.

Blair, I. V. & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled pro-

cesses in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology

, 70

, 1142 1163.

Brauer, M., Wasel, W. & Niedenthal, P. (2000). Implicit and explicit

components of prejudice. Review of General Psychology

, 4

, 79

101.

Crosby, F., Bromley, S. & Saxe, L. (1980). Recent unobtrusive studies

of black and white discrimination and prejudice: A literature

review. Psychological Bulletin

, 35

, 546563.

Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic

and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 56, 5 18.

Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B. & Howard, A.

(1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled

processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510540.

Dunton, B. C. & Fazio, R. H. (1997). An individual difference

measure of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Personality

and Social Psychology Bulletin,23, 316326.

Ekehammar, B., Akrami, N. & Araya, T. (2003). Gender differences

in implicit prejudice. Personality and Individual Differences, 34,

15091523.

Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C. & Williams, C. J.

(1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unobtrusive

measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 69, 1013 1027.

Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C. & Kardes, F. R.

(1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of

Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229238.

Forsman, L. (1993). Giving extreme responses to items in self-esteemscales: Response set or personality trait? European Journal of

Psychological Assessment, 9, 3340.

Franco, F. M. & Maass, A. (1999). Intentional control over pre-

judice: When the choice of the measure matters. European Journal

of Social Psychology,29, 469477.

Greenwald, A. G. & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition:

Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review,

102, 427.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. K. L. (1998).

Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The

implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social

Psychology, 74, 14641480.

Jackson, D. N. (1967). Acquiescence response styles: Problems of

identification and control. In I. A. Berg (Ed.), Response set in

personality assessment(pp. 71114). Chicago, IL: Aldine.

Katz, I. & Hass, R. G. (1988). Racial ambivalence and American

value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive

structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55,

893905.

Kawakami, K., Dion, K. & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Racial prejudice

and stereotype activation. Personality and Social Psychology

Bulletin,24, 407416.

Lepore, L. & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation:

Is prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,

72, 275287.

Locke, V., Macleod, C. & Walker, I. (1994). Automatic and controlled

activation of stereotypes: Individual differences associated

with prejudice. British Journal of Social Psychology, 33, 2946.

McConahay, J. B. (1986). Modern racism, ambivalence, and theModern Racism Scale. In J. F. Dovidio & S. L. Gaertner (Eds.),

Prejudice, discrimination, and racism (pp. 91126). New York:

Academic Press.

McConahay, J. B., Hardee, B. B. & Batts, V. (1981). Has racism

declined in America? It depends upon who is asking and what

is asked. Journal of Conflict Resolution,25, 563578.

Moskowitz, G., Wasel, W., Gollwitzer, P. M. & Schaal, B. (1999).

Preconscious control of stereotype activation through egalitarian

goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77, 167185.

Pettigrew, T. F. & Meertens, R. W. (1995). Subtle and blatant

prejudice in western Europe. European Journal of Social Psy-

chology,25, 5775.

Plant, E. A & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motiva-

tion to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and

Social Psychology, 75, 811832.Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M. & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial

prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with question-

naire measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72,

262274.

Received 30 May 2003, accepted 25 May 2004

lskjgks

Documents