Teacher’s Summary: In “Implicit Association Test and Measures of Prejudice: A Personal Reflection and Literature Review,” an 11th-grade honors student explores the challenges of measuring prejudice through personal reflection on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and a review of sociological literature. The paper discusses the author’s experience with the IAT, highlighting the discomfort and awareness of unconscious biases. It also examines the difficulties in measuring prejudice due to unconscious influences, learned behaviors, and concealed prejudices. The author reviews various sociological methods for quantifying bias, such as national surveys, labor force records, and the Bogardus Social Distance Scale. The conclusion emphasizes the complexity of accurately measuring prejudice and calls for more comprehensive research approaches. The paper underscores the need for nuanced understanding and tools to address unconscious bias and promote social equity.
Implicit Association Test and Measures of Prejudice: A Personal Reflection and Literature Review
Abstract
This paper examines the Implicit Association Test (IAT) as a measure of unconscious bias, particularly focusing on associations between White American and Native American identities with concepts of “foreign” and “American.” The author’s personal experience with the IAT is analyzed, followed by a broader discussion of the challenges in measuring prejudice and various sociological approaches to quantifying bias.
Introduction
The measurement of prejudice remains a complex challenge in social psychology and sociology. This paper aims to explore this topic through a combination of personal reflection on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and a review of relevant literature on prejudice measurement techniques.
Personal Experience with the IAT
The author completed an IAT focusing on associations between White American and Native American identities with concepts of “foreign” and “American.” The results indicated little to no association between these categories. While the author found these results satisfactory, they noted feeling uncomfortable during the test, possibly due to the unfamiliar nature of the categorization task.
The speed of responses and minimal errors (two incorrect responses) suggest a high level of engagement with the test. The author’s perception of the test’s validity aligns with their expectation of their own biases, though this self-assessment should be interpreted cautiously given the potential for social desirability bias in self-reporting (Krumpal, 2013).
Challenges in Measuring Prejudice
The difficulty in accurately measuring prejudice stems from several factors:
- Unconscious influences: As noted by the author, individuals can be influenced by unconscious biases, making self-reporting unreliable (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).
- Learned behaviors: The author suggests that prejudiced behaviors might be learned from media or family influences, a concept supported by social learning theory (Bandura, 1977).
- Personal choice: The author posits that individuals must decide whether to maintain prejudiced attitudes, highlighting the role of conscious decision-making in prejudice expression.
- Concealed prejudice: The concept of a “timid bigot” mentioned by the author aligns with the theory of aversive racism, where individuals may consciously endorse egalitarian values while harboring unconscious negative attitudes (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2004).
Sociological Measures of Prejudice
Sociologists employ various methods to measure prejudice:
- National surveys: These provide broad data on attitudes but may be subject to social desirability bias.
- Labor force records: Analysis of employment patterns can reveal systemic biases but may not capture individual-level prejudice.
- Authoritarian Personality Theory: This psychological construct aims to identify personality types prone to prejudice (Adorno et al., 1950).
- Bogardus Social Distance Scale: This measure assesses willingness to interact with different racial or ethnic groups, providing a quantifiable measure of prejudice (Bogardus, 1933).
Conclusion
The measurement of prejudice remains a complex challenge in social sciences. While tools like the IAT and various sociological measures provide valuable insights, each has limitations. Future research should focus on developing more comprehensive and nuanced approaches to understanding and quantifying prejudice.
References
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality. Harper & Brothers.
Bandura, A. (1977). Social learning theory. Prentice Hall.
Bogardus, E. S. (1933). A social distance scale. Sociology & Social Research, 17, 265-271.
Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, 36, 1-52.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4-27.
Krumpal, I. (2013). Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review. Quality & Quantity, 47(4), 2025-2047.
Online References
1.Krumpal, I. (2013). “Determinants of social desirability bias in sensitive surveys: A literature review.” Quality & Quantity, vol. 47, no. 4, pp. 2025-2047, www.springerlink.com/content/krumpal-social-desirability-bias/.
2. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). “Aversive racism.” Advances in Experimental Social Psychology, vol. 36, pp. 1-52, www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0065260104360016.