Skip to main content Accessibility help

We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.

Close cookie message
×
Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-gxg78 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-22T19:44:05.011Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

7 - Revisiting the Measurement of Group Schemas in Political Science

from Section II - Do Measures of Implicit Bias Predict Cognition and Behavior?

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  aN Invalid Date NaN

By
Kirill Zhirkov  and
Nicholas A. Valentino
Edited by
Jon A. Krosnick ,
Tobias H. Stark  and
Amanda L. Scott
Jon A. Krosnick
Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Tobias H. Stark
Affiliation:
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Amanda L. Scott
Affiliation:
The Strategy Team, Columbus, Ohio
Get access

Summary

While schema theory motivated the original measures of automatic cognitive associations between constructs in memory, researchers soon modified these to explore a different domain: implicit attitudes about social groups that elude standard self-reports. As the so-called implicit attitude revolution gained steam, the original measurement goal got much less attention, especially in political science. We believe the schema concept – automatic cognitive associations between features of an attitude object – continues to hold great value for political psychology. We offer a retrofit of the popular implicit association test (IAT), one more efficient than many lexical tasks, to tap these associations in surveys. The new technique captures the degree to which citizens link ideas about ostensibly group-neutral policies to specific social categories. We use this measurement strategy to explore the psychological mechanisms underlying group centrism in politics, an effort that has been largely abandoned due to measurement difficulties. Results from four studies offer practical suggestions about the application of implicit measures for capturing the automatic ways people link groups to important political objects. We conclude by discussing the broader promise of implicit measurement of group schemas, not just implicit affect, for political psychology.

Keywords

group schemapartisanshipaffective polarizationwelfarepublic opinionimplicit cognitiongenderrace
Type
Chapter
Information
The Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism , pp. 222 - 245
Publisher: Cambridge University Press
Print publication year: 2025

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Anderson, J. R. (1983). A spreading activation theory of memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 22(3), 261–295. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022–5371(83)90201-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Arkes, H. R., & Tetlock, P. E. (2004). Attributions of implicit prejudice, or “Would Jesse Jackson ‘fail’ the implicit association test?” Psychological Inquiry, 15(4), 257–278. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15327965pli1504_01CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7(3), 136–141. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A., & Chartrand, T. L. (1999). The unbearable automaticity of being. American Psychologist, 54(7), 462–479. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.54.7.462CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Bargh, J. A., Chen, M., & Burrows, L. (1996). Automaticity of social behavior: Direct effects of trait construct and stereotype activation on action. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 71(2), 230–244. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.71.2.230Google ScholarPubMed
Berinsky, A. J., Huber, G. A., & Lenz, G. S. (2012). Evaluating online labor markets for experimental research: Amazon.com’s Mechanical Turk. Political Analysis, 20(3), 351–368. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpr057CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Berman, S. (2016). The lost left. Journal of Democracy, 27(4), 69–76. http://doi.org/10.1353/jod.2016.0063CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Blanton, H., & Jaccard, J. (2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61(1), 27–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0003-066X.61.1.27CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Brambor, T., Clark, W. R., & Golder, M. (2006). Understanding interaction models: Improving empirical analyses. Political Analysis, 14(1), 63–82. https://doi.org/10.1093/pan/mpi014CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Dotsch, R., Cooley, E., et al. (2017). The relationship between mental representations of welfare recipients and attitudes toward welfare. Psychological Science, 28(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797616674999CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. S. (1957). On perceptual readiness. Psychological Review, 64(2), 123–152. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0043805CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bruner, J. S., & Goodman, C. C. (1947). Value and need as organizing factors in perception. Journal of Abnormal Psychology, 42(1), 33–44. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0058484CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Carpenter, T. P., Pogacar, R., Pullig, C., et al. (2019). Survey-based implicit association tests: A methodological and empirical analysis. Behavior Research Methods, 51(5), 2194–2208. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428–019-01293-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Chong, D., & Druckman, J. N. (2007). Framing theory. Annual Review of Political Science, 10, 103–126. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.10.072805.103054CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Collins, A. M., & Loftus, E. F. (1975). A spreading-activation theory of semantic processing. Psychological Review, 82(6), 407–428. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.82.6.407CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, P. J. (1988). The role of social groups in political thinking. British Journal of Political Science, 18(1), 51–76. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0007123400004956CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Conover, P. J., & Feldman, S. (1984). How people organize the political world: A schematic model. American Journal of Political Science, 28(1), 95–126. http://doi.org/10.2307/2110789CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Converse, P. E. (1964). The nature of belief systems in mass publics. In Apter, D. E. (Ed.), Ideology and Discontent. Florence, MA: Free Press, pp. 206–261.Google Scholar
Dancygier, R. M. (2017). Dilemmas of Inclusion: Muslims in European Politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Dijksterhuis, A., & Bargh, J. A. (2001). The perception–behavior expressway: Automatic effects of social perception on social behavior. In Zanna, M. P. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 33, pp. 1–40). New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065–2601(01)80003-4Google Scholar
Fazio, R. H. (1990). A practical guide to the use of response latency in social psychological research. In Hendrick, C. and Clark, M. S. (Eds.), Review of Personality and Social Psychology, Vol. 11. Research methods in Personality and Social Psychology. London: SAGE Publications, pp. 74–97.Google Scholar
Fiske, S. T., & Linville, P. W. (1980). What does the schema concept buy us? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 6(4), 543–557. https://doi.org/10.1177/014616728064006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gawronski, B., Galdi, S., & Arcuri, L. (2015). What can political psychology learn from implicit measures? Empirical evidence and new directions. Political Psychology, 36(1): 1–17. https://doi.org/10.1111/pops.12094CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Gilens, M. (1999). Why Americans Hate Welfare: Race, Media, and the Politics of Antipoverty Policy. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(3), 491–512. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.70.3.491CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Green, D., Palmquist, B., & Schickler, E. (2002). Partisan Hearts and Minds: Political Parties and the Social Identities of Voters. New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.Google Scholar
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), 197–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.85.2.197CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., et al. (2009). Understanding and using the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0015575CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Hawkins, C. B., & Nosek, B. A. (2012). Motivated independence? Implicit party identity predicts political judgments among self-proclaimed independents. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 38(11), 1437–1452. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167212452313CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Higgins, E. T., Rholes, W. S., et al. (1977). Category accessibility and impression formation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 13(2), 141–154. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022–1031(77)80007-3CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hunzaker, M. B. F. (2016). Cultural sentiments and schema-consistency bias in information transmission. American Sociological Review, 81(6), 1223–1250. https://doi.org/10.1177/0003122416671742CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Hutchings, V. L., & Jardina, A. E. (2009). Experiments on racial priming in political campaigns. Annual Review of Political Science, 12, 397–402. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev.polisci.12.060107.154208CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Karpinski, A., & Steinman, R. B. (2006). The single category implicit association test as a measure of implicit social cognition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91(1), 16–32. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.1.16CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Kinder, D. R., & Kalmoe, N. P. (2017). Neither Liberal nor Conservative: Ideological Innocence in the American Public. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Kline, R. B. (2010). Principles and Practice of Structural Equation Modeling (3rd ed.). New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Lazarsfeld, P. F., Berelson, B., & Gaudet, H. (1948). The People’s Choice: How the Voter Makes Up His Mind in a Presidential Campaign (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Columbia University Press.Google Scholar
Meissner, F., & Rothermund, K. (2015). A thousand words are worth more than a picture? The effects of stimulus modality on the implicit association test. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(7), 740–748. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550615580381CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Moskowitz, G. B. (2005). Social Cognition: Understanding Self and Others. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Nelson, T. E., Clawson, R. A, & Oxley, Z. M. (1997). Media framing of a civil liberties conflict and its effect on tolerance. American Political Science Review, 91(3), 567–583. https://doi.org/10.2307/2952075CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nelson, T. E., & Kinder, D. R. (1996). Issue frames and group-centrism in American public opinion. Journal of Politics, 58(4), 1055–1078. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960149CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Newheiser, A.K., & Olson, K. R. (2012). White and Black American children’s implicit intergroup bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(1), 264–270. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.08.011CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Harvesting implicit group attitudes and beliefs from a demonstration web site. Group Dynamics, 6(1), 101–115. https://doi.org/10.1037/1089-2699.6.1.101CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005). Understanding and using the implicit association test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31(2), 166–180. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167204271418CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., et al. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), 36–88. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463280701489053CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rudman, L. A., & Borgida, E. (1995). The afterglow of construct accessibility: The behavioral consequences of priming men to view women as sexual objects. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 31(6), 493–517. https://doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1995.1022CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Page, S. E. (2007). The Difference: How the Power of Diversity Creates Better Groups, Firms, Schools, and Societies. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.Google Scholar
Peer, E., Brandimarte, L., Samat, S., et al. (2017). Beyond the Turk: Alternative platforms for crowdsourcing behavioral research. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 70, 153–63. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2017.01.006CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 139–165. https://doi.org/10.1037/0096-3445.133.2.139CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Schneider, D. J. (2004). The Psychology of Stereotyping. New York, NY: Guilford Press.Google Scholar
Sears, D. O. (1993). Symbolic politics: A socio-psychological theory. In Iyengar, S. & McGuire, W. J. (Eds.), Explorations in Political Psychology. Durham, NC: Duke University Press.Google Scholar
Simon, H. A. 1957. Models of man: Social and rational. New York, NY: Wiley.Google Scholar
Srull, T. K., & Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category accessibility in the interpretation of information about persons: Some determinants and implications. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 37(10), 1660–1672. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.37.10.1660CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Crocker, J. (1981). Schematic bases of social information processing. In Higgins, E. T., Herman, C. P., & Zanna, M. P. (Eds.), Social Cognition: The Ontario Symposium. New York, NY: Lawrence Erlbaum, pp. 89–134.Google Scholar
Taylor, S. E., & Fiske, S. T. (1978). Salience, attention, and attribution: Top of the head phenomena. In Berkowitz, L. (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 11, pp. 249–288). New York, NY: Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0065–2601(08)60009-XGoogle Scholar
Theodoridis, A. G. (2017). Me, myself, and (I), (D), or (R)? Partisanship and political cognition through the lens of implicit identity. Journal of Politics, 79(4): 1253–1267. https://doi.org/10.1086/692738CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Tversky, A., & Kahneman, D. (1974). Judgment under uncertainty: Heuristics and biases. Science, 185(4157), 1124–1131. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.185.4157.1124CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Valentino, N. A., Brader, T., & Jardina, A. E. (2013). Immigration opposition among U.S. Whites: General ethnocentrism or media priming of attitudes about Latinos? Political Psychology, 34(2), 149–166. https://doi.org/10.1111/j.1467-9221.2012.00928.xCrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, N. A., Hutchings, V. L., & White, I. K. (2002). Cues that matter: How political ads prime racial attitudes during campaigns. American Political Science Review, 96(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/10.1017/S0003055402004240CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Valentino, N. A., Wayne, C., & Oceno, M. (2018). Mobilizing sexism: The interaction of emotion and gender attitudes in the 2016 US presidential election. Public Opinion Quarterly, 82(S1), 799–821. https://doi.org/10.1093/poq/nfy003CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Winter, N. J. G. (2010). Masculine Republicans and feminine Democrats: Gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties. Political Behavior, 32(4), 587–618. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11109–010-9131-zCrossRefGoogle Scholar

Save book to Kindle

To save this book to your Kindle, first ensure [email protected] is added to your Approved Personal Document E-mail List under your Personal Document Settings on the Manage Your Content and Devices page of your Amazon account. Then enter the ‘name’ part of your Kindle email address below. Find out more about saving to your Kindle.

Note you can select to save to either the @free.kindle.com or @kindle.com variations. ‘@free.kindle.com’ emails are free but can only be saved to your device when it is connected to wi-fi. ‘@kindle.com’ emails can be delivered even when you are not connected to wi-fi, but note that service fees apply.

Find out more about the Kindle Personal Document Service.

Available formats
×

Save book to Dropbox

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Dropbox.

Available formats
×

Save book to Google Drive

To save content items to your account, please confirm that you agree to abide by our usage policies. If this is the first time you use this feature, you will be asked to authorise Cambridge Core to connect with your account. Find out more about saving content to Google Drive.

Available formats
×