Spontaneous prejudice in context: variability in automatically activated attitudes.

By Bernd Wittenbrink, C. Judd, Bernadette Park. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2001

618 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6def039a1e19056fc2c43c7e24a85792326de23d

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Prejudice reduction: what works? A review and assessment of research and practice. (2009, background): “…black people (e.g., Martin Luther King) and negative images of famous whites (e.g., Charles Manson) reduced implicit prejudice as measured by the Implicit Attitudes Test (IAT; Greenwald et al. 1998), but conscious attitudes remained unchanged (Dasgupta & Greenwald 2001, Wittenbrink et al. 2001).”
How Advergame Content Influences Explicit and Implicit Brand Attitudes: When Violence Spills Over (2013, background): “The negative context (gang incident and poor neighborhood) caused more negative connections; the positive context (family barbecue, basketball arena) showed a neutral to positive tendency (Wittenbrink, Judd, and Park 2001).”
Implicit and Explicit Consequences of Exposure to Violent and Misogynous Rap Music (2002, background): “In fact, recent research has shown that context can influence the relationship between IAT scores and selfreports (Wittenbrink et al., 2001, Experiment 1).”
Intergroup Perception and Cognition: An Integrative Framework for Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Social Categorization (2017, background): “…perceiving similarity between outgroup members and the self (Kawakami, Williams, et al., under review; Walton & Cohen, 2007), and perceiving outgroup members in a new and positive context (Rudman et al., 2001; Wittenbrink et al., 2001) are all closely tied to the main tenants of Contact Theory.”
Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (2006, neutral): “The most chosen research focus is on the IAT as a diagnostic end in itself and only rarely on tests of IAT-independent cognitive or affective hypotheses (for notable exceptions see Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002 ; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 2001 ), rendering it quite different ”
Implicit stereotyping against people with disability (2018, methodology): “, 2002), the main purpose of the first two studies was to analyze implicit stereotyping toward people with disability, using two different priming procedures widely used in the literature (Wittenbrink et al., 2001), conceptual (Study 1) and evaluative (Study 2) priming.”
The Associative–Propositional Evaluation Model: Theory, Evidence, and Open Questions (2011, background): “In addition, implicit evaluations have been shown to be highly context-sensitive (e.g., Barden et al., 2004; Roefs et al., 2006; Rudman & Lee, 2002; Wittenbrink et al., 2001), and this sensitivity to contextual cues does not always generalize to explicit evaluations (e.”
Unraveling the Processes Underlying Evaluation: Attitudes from the Perspective of the Ape Model (2007, background): “Evidence for the first type of influence is implied by research showing that the valence of affective reactions to one and the same individual depends on the particular context in which this individual is encountered (e.g., Barden et al., 2004; Wittenbrink et al., 2001); evidence for the second type”