The Mass Public’s View of Implicit Bias, with Implications for Scientific Communication in a Politically Polarized Age

doi:10.1017/9781108885492.045

29 - The Mass Public’s View of Implicit Bias, with Implications for Scientific Communication in a Politically Polarized Age

from Section VII - The Public’s (Mis)understanding of Implicit Bias

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 21 December 2024

Cindy D. Kam and

Edited by

Tobias H. Stark and

Jon A. Krosnick: Affiliation:
Stanford University, California
Tobias H. Stark: Affiliation:
Utrecht University, The Netherlands
Amanda L. Scott: Affiliation:
The Strategy Team, Columbus, Ohio

Book contents

Get access

Summary

In this chapter, we examine the public’s understanding of implicit bias, a topic that has only recently caught the public’s attention. Given that political elites often set the contours of debate on political issues, we begin by conducting a systematic content analysis of newspaper headlines and cable news transcripts to assess the prevalence and nature of media coverage of implicit bias. We find that partisan media utilize starkly different frames regarding the scientific validity of the concept of implicit bias, the political intentions of those who use the phrase, and the requisite political recourses (if any). We then utilize two individual-level datasets to examine the mass public’s understanding of implicit bias. An original survey reveals a stark gulf in partisan understandings of implicit bias and an analysis of Project Implicit data highlights the interplay between personalized feedback from the IAT and ideology in shaping evaluations of the IAT. We conclude with a discussion of the challenges of science communication, particularly on issues relating to race, in a politically polarized age.

Keywords

public opinion mass public framing content analysis media

Type: Chapter
Information: The Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism , pp. 745 - 765

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/9781108885492.045 [Opens in a new window]

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.)

Book purchase

Temporarily unavailable

References

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.CrossRef Google Scholar

Baumeister, R. F., Tice, D. M., & Hutton, D. G. (1989). Self-presentational motivations and personality differences in self-esteem. Journal of Personality, 57(3), 547–579.CrossRef Google Scholar

Bolsen, T., & Druckman, J. N. (2015). Counteracting the politicization of science. Journal of Communication, 65(5), 745–769.CrossRef Google Scholar

Engelhardt, A. M. (2021). The content of their coverage: Contrasting racially conservative and liberal elite rhetoric. Politics, Groups, and Identities, 9(5), 935–954.CrossRef Google Scholar

Gamson, W. A. (1992). Talking Politics. Cambridge: Cambridge 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.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Hensch, M. (2016, September 26). Clinton: We must fight ‘implicit bias.’ The Hill. https://thehill.com/blogs/ballot-box/presidential-races/297939-clinton-i-think-implicit-bias-is-a-problem-for-everyone Google Scholar

Howell, J. L., Gaither, S. E., & Ratliff, K. A. (2014). Caught in the middle: Defensive responses to IAT feedback among Whites, Blacks, and biracial Black/Whites. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 6(4), 373–381.CrossRef Google Scholar

Howell, J. L., Redford, L., Pogge, G., et al. (2017). Defensive responding to IAT feedback. Social Cognition, 35(5), 520–562.CrossRef Google Scholar

Johnson, J. (2016, September 28). Two days after the debate, Trump responds to Clinton’s comment on implicit bias. The Washington Post. www.washingtonpost.com/news/post-politics/wp/2016/09/28/two-days-after-the-debate-trump-responds-to-clintons-comment-on-implicit-bias/Google Scholar

Kurdi, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2017). Reports of the death of the individual difference approach to implicit social cognition may be greatly exaggerated: A commentary on Payne, Vuletich, and Lundberg. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 281–287.CrossRef Google Scholar

Payne, B. K., Vuletich, H. A., & Lundberg, K. B. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248.CrossRef Google Scholar

Swann, W. B. (1983). Self-verification: Bringing social reality into harmony with the self. In Sulis, J. and Greenwald, A. G. (Eds.), Social Psychological Perspectives on the Self. New York, NY: Erlbaum Associates, pp. 33–66.Google Scholar

Yen, J., Durrheim, K., & Tafarodi, R. W. (2018). ‘I’m happy to own my implicit biases’: Public encounters with the Implicit Association Test. British Journal of Social Psychology, 57(3), 505–523.CrossRef Google Scholar PubMed

Zaller, J. R. (1992). The Nature and Origins of Mass Opinion. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press.CrossRef Google Scholar