Implicit Stereotype Content
Mixed Stereotypes Can Be Measured with the Implicit Association Test
Abstract
The stereotype content model (SCM) postulates that stereotype content can be mixed in terms of diverging evaluations on the warmth and competence dimensions. The present study is the first to demonstrate this with implicit measures. Two Implicit Associations Tests (IATs) were developed, one capturing the warmth dimension and the other the competence dimension. Both IATs compared preschool teachers (stereotypically warm and incompetent) with lawyers (stereotypically cold and competent). As predicted, two samples of students from various areas of study showed the mixed implicit stereotypes, while a group of preschool-teacher students showed a univalent positive implicit stereotype of their own group, suggesting in-group favoritism. The results support the SCM.
References
(2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 652–661.
(2006). Arbitrary metrics in psychology. American Psychologist, 61, 27–41.
(2007). The BIAS map: Behaviors from intergroup affect and stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 92, 631–648.
(2009). Stereotype content model holds across cultures: Toward universal similarities and some differences. British Journal of Social Psychology, 48, 1–33.
(2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their meaning and uses. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327.
(2007). Universal dimensions of social cognition: Warmth and competence. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 11, 77–83.
(2002). A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: Competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 878–902.
(2007). What do implicit measures tell us? Scrutinizing the validity of three common assumptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 181–193.
(1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
(1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464–1480.
(2003). Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216.
(2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17–41.
(2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the implicit association test and explicit self-report measures. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.
. (2008). Seattle, WA: Millisecond Software.
(2007). Understanding and using the implicit association test: IV: What we know (so far) about the method. In , Implicit measures of attitudes (pp. 59–102). New York: Guilford.
(2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 134, 565–584.
(2005). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II. Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180.
(2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18, 36–88.
(2007). Discrimination and the implicit association test. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 359–372.
(2002). Implicit and explicit consequences of exposure to violent and misogynous rap music. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 5, 133–150.
(2006). The influence of one’s own body weight on implicit and explicit anti-fat bias. Obesity, 14, 440–447.
(2006). The structure of female subgroups: An exploration of ambivalent stereotypes. Sex Roles, 54, 753–765.
