The Reliability of Implicit Stereotyping

By K. Kawakami, John F. Dovidio. 2001

125 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/acfbdd2345488af44c6e94e157fd9679b0e73e14

How researchers see this paper

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

In Gender Studies

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Implicit measures in social cognition. research: their meaning and use. (2003, background): “However, the few reports regarding test-retest reliability for various priming measures have ranged from abysmally low (Bosson et al. 2000) to moderate levels of∼.5 (Kawakami & Dovidio 2001).”
An inkblot for attitudes: affect misattribution as implicit measurement. (2005, background): “Priming procedures often produce relatively low reliabilities (e.g., Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001).”
What lies beneath: Parenting style and implicit self-esteem. (2006, background): “Because implicit measures tend to be somewhat less reliable compared with explicit measures (see Kawakami and Dovidio, 2001; for a related discussion of measures of implicit stereotyping), assessing implicit self-esteem multiple times is clearly the ideal way to assess trait implicit self-esteem.”
Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: an integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. (2006, background): “It is important to note, however, that Kawakami et al.’s (2000) “negation” training confounded the negation of stereotypes with the affirmation of counterstereotypes.”
Stereotypic explanatory bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination (2003, result): “Because implicit measures are frequently unrelated to more traditional, direct measures of racial attitudes (Dovidio et al., 1997; Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001; von Hippel et al., 1997), we expected that the SEB measure would not be correlated with the MRS.”
Implicit and Explicit Occupational Gender Stereotypes (2006, background): “Although several studies have shown good reliability and validity for the IAT (Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001; Greenwald & Nosek, 2001), correlations with demonstrably reliable and valid explicit measures have been only modest (Brunel, Tietje, & Greenwald, 2004; Cunningham, Preacher, B Kawakami & Dov”
Intergroup Perception and Cognition: An Integrative Framework for Understanding the Causes and Consequences of Social Categorization (2017, background): “…that exposure to a category representation, whether it be an actual ingroup or outgroup member, a photograph, or a category label, is sufficient to activate associated conceptual characteristics (Blair, 2002; Blair & Banaji, 1996; Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001; Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne, 1995).”
How Dissociated Are Implicit and Explicit Racial Attitudes? A Bogus Pipeline Approach (2005, background): “The reliability of implicit measures is generally lower than the reliability of explicit measures (Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001), and as a result the error variance that is present in the measurement of implicit attitudes may suppress the implicit–explicit relationship.”
Students' Perceptions of Expressiveness: Age and Gender Effects on Teacher Evaluations (2003, methodology): “Attitudes about emotional expressiveness stem from culturally driven implicit gender stereotyping (Banaji, Hardin, & Rothman, 1993; Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001; Swim & Cohen, 1997).”
Individual differences in working memory capacity and dual-process theories of the mind. (2004, methodology): “Incorporating WMC into the analysis may also help to explain why practice overcomes the automatic activation of stereotyped information (e.g., Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001).”
Implicit Ingroup Favoritism, Outgroup Favoritism, and Their Behavioral Manifestations (2004, background): “…Kawakamiet al., 2002), and women (Banajiet al., 1993; Banaji and Greenwald, 1995; Banaji and Hardin, 1996; Blairet al., 2001; Blair and Banaji, 1996; Dasgupta and Asgari, in press; Kawakami and Dovidio, 2001; Moskowitz et al., 1999; Noseket al., 2002a,b; Rudmanet al., 2001; Rudman and Glick, 2001).”
Gender differences in implicit prejudice. (2003, background): “Augoustinos et al., 1994; Bargh et al., 1996; Chen & Bargh, 1997; Kawakami et al., 1998; Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001; Locke, MacLeod, & Walker, 1994; Wittenbrink et al., 1997).”
Seeing black: race, crime, and visual processing. (2004, methodology): “... 1983; Gilbert & Hixon, 1991; Kawakami, Dion, & Dovidio, 1998; Lepore & Brown, 1997; Macrae, Bodenhausen, & Milne, 1995; Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, Thorn, & Castelli, 1997; Macrae, Stangor, & Milne, 1994; Moskowitz, Gollwitzer, Wasel, & Schaal, 1999; Perdue & Gurtman, 1990; Wittenbrink, Judd, & ”