Relations between implicit measures of prejudice: What are we measuring?: (633872013-734)

By Michael A. Olson, R. Fazio. 2003

124 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Political Science and International Relations, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6fd1a6579613d3326dbb1a246d148c1e834715ee

How researchers see this paper

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

In Political Science and International Relations

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

When the method makes a difference: Antagonistic effects on “automatic evaluations” as a function of task characteristics of the measure (2009, methodology): “1 Note that even though Fazio et al. (1995) used the t original presentation of the task, they have rarely use recent exception, see Olson & Fazio, 2003).”
Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (2006, background): “Olson and Fazio (2003) found a prejudice prevalence of 79% among White undergraduates (N¼ 100), according to the IAT.”
The Implicit Association Test at Age 7: A Methodological and Conceptual Review (2007, background): “This difference may have important effects on measurement such that participants may idiosyncratically categorize items in sequential priming procedures, but must arrive at a specific categorization for IAT performance (Olson & Fazio, 2003).”
Ten Frequently Asked Questions About Implicit Measures and Their Frequently Supposed, But Not Entirely Correct Answers (2009, background): “This situation is different in the IAT (Greenwald et al., 1998), which explicitly requires participants to categorize the presented stimuli in terms of their category membership (e.g., Olson & Fazio, 2003).”
Comparing measures of approach–avoidance behaviour: The manikin task vs. two versions of the joystick task (2010, methodology): “Supporting this reasoning, some studies found an increase of the reliability when the task was modified in such a way that participants were required to process the to-be-measured feature (De Houwer & De Bruycker, 2007a ; Olson & Fazio, 2003 ).”
Webinar: Racial Bias in Driver Yielding Behavior at Crosswalks (2015, background): “…expressed forms of racial bias) biased attitudes have decreased over the last 50 years (Bobo, 1991), contemporary forms of racial bias are often demonstrated on a covert or implicit level (Dovidio, 2001; Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Olson & Fazio, 2003).”
Implicit measures: A normative analysis and review. (2009, background): “This low reliability could in part be due to the fact that the relevant category (i.e., the attitude object that is being examined) is typically not made explicit (see Olson & Fazio, 2003; De Houwer, 2009).”
What have we been priming all these years? On the development, mechanisms, and ecology of nonconscious social behavior. (2006, background): “Olson and Fazio (2003) review evidence that the results of the well-known ‘implicit association test’ (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) measure of one’s automatic attitudes can be moderated by current goals or need states; for example cigarette smokers often have a negative implicit…”
Prejudice in Schools: Promotion of an Inclusive Culture and Climate (2010, unknown): “Researchers have distinguished between implicit and explicit constructs of bias, and some studies indicate promising results that even learned biases, which may not be conscious, could be unlearned (Olson & Fazio, 2003; Rudman, Ashmore, & Gary, 2001).”