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
×
  1. Home
  2. Search

Refine search

Refine search

Access:
Content type:
Publication date:
Apply   From and To filters
Subject: Show more
Journals Show more
Publishers: Show more
Societies Show more
Series: Show more
Collections: Show more

Actions for selected content:

Select all | Deselect all
  • View selected items
  • Export citations
  • Download PDF (zip)
  • Save to Kindle
  • Save to Dropbox
  • Save to Google Drive

Save Search

You can save your searches here and later view and run them again in "My saved searches".

Please provide a title, maximum of 40 characters.
Cancel
×

1 results

  • 9 - What Is the Unique Contribution of Implicit Measures in Predicting Political Choices?

  • from Section II - Do Measures of Implicit Bias Predict Cognition and Behavior?
  • Edited by Jon A. Krosnick, Stanford University, California, Tobias H. Stark, Utrecht University, The Netherlands, Amanda L. Scott, The Strategy Team, Columbus, Ohio
  • Book:
    The Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism
    Published online:
    21 December 2024
    Print publication:
    02 January 2025, pp 262-278

  • Summary

    How do implicit and explicit racial attitudes compare in their ability to predict political attitudes and behaviors? Data from existing studies suggest that implicit measures may be less relevant than explicit ones for predicting vote choice. This chapter replicates that result using data from 2008 and 2012 and considers whether the dominance of explicit measures in this domain can be attributed to the fact that voting is a highly considered action, wherein individuals may have taken steps to mitigate their own biases. To assess this, we use nationally representative panel survey data to examine whether the relative dominance of explicit measures over the Affect Misattribution Procedure was similarly true across the campaign season and for alternative outcomes that may have encouraged less cognitive control than voting. Results indicate that explicit measures were more predictive for the vast majority of political outcomes. This raises questions about the added value of considering implicit measures in addition to explicit ones when measuring political attitudes and behaviors.