Race and Political Cognition: Implicit Measures of Ideology and Racism

长期以来，政治学家一直在争论种族主义在美国政治态度中的作用，一些学者认为种族主义不再像以前那样强大，另一些学者则认为种族主义仍然强大，但现在以一种更微妙的形式存在。由于自我表现和社会可取性偏见，或者由于公民可能没有充分意识到他们自己的种族态度，因此不能通过明确的措施（即答辩人充分意识到的措施）令人满意地解决这一辩论。我采用了一种来自认知心理学的实验方法来探索人们脑海中与种族相关的政策的内隐联系（无意识的、自发的）。这种方法使我能够评估种族对平权行动、福利或犯罪等政策态度的影响程度，而不受社会可取性的影响（人们可能不想承认自己的种族态度）。关于种族在政治中的作用的研究提出了几个相互矛盾的假设，即当人们想到平权行动等与种族有关的政策时，种族刻板印象或对merit和努力工作的意识形态关注是否会变得更容易接受。首先，大卫·西尔斯（David Sears）、唐纳德·金德（Donald Kinder）和塔利·门德尔伯格（Tali Mendelberg）等人认为，平权行动将主要被视为种族问题，其次才是意识形态问题。第二种观点与保罗•斯奈德曼（Paul Sniderman）及其同事的研究有关，他们认为，在应对这些政策问题时，首先应该考虑意识形态方面的因素，尤其是对政治保守派而言。虽然种族主义思想对一些保守派来说可能是可以理解的，但对保守派来说，它们不应该比自由派更容易理解。我们的试点研究表明，使用学生样本，种族仍然是大多数受试者最有力的隐性考虑因素，即使是保守派，当受到平权行动的影响时。但当被要求有意识地思考平权行动和其他与种族有关的问题时，大多数参与者都会考虑种族和意识形态方面的考虑。这表明在思考种族问题上存在重要的隐性/显性分歧，这让人想起一些早期的种族态度研究（例如，Devine, 1989）。然而，我们不愿从试点结果中得出一般性结论，因为学生样本可能相当不能代表美国公众（尤其是有原则的保守派）。因此，我进行了一系列后续研究，把我们的实验室方法“在路上”用更广泛的成年美国人样本来评估种族和意识形态。

Political scientists have long debated the role of racism in political attitudes in the United States, with some scholars arguing that racism is no longer the potent force it once was and others arguing that racism remains potent, but now takes a more subtle form. This debate cannot be satisfactorily addressed with explicit measures (i.e., those the respondent is fully aware of) because of self-presentational and social desirability biases or because citizens may not be fully aware of their own racial attitudes. I use an experimental method adapted from cognitive psychology to explore the implicit associations (non-conscious, spontaneous) to race-related policies that people carry in their minds. This method allows me to assess the degree to which race affects attitudes on policies like affirmative action, welfare, or crime, without the influence of social desirability (people may not want to admit to their racial attitudes).The research on race in politics offers several competing hypotheses about whether race stereotypes or an ideological concern for merit and hard work will become more accessible when people think about race-related policies like affirmative action. First, David Sears, Donald Kinder, and Tali Mendelberg among others suggest that affirmative action will be perceived primarily as a race issue, and only secondarily as an ideological one. A second position, associated with the work of Paul Sniderman and colleagues, suggests that ideological considerations, first and foremost, should be present in response to these policy issues, especially for political conservatives. While racial thoughts may become accessible for some conservatives, they ought to be no more accessible for conservatives than for liberals.Our pilot study shows, using a student sample, that race remains the most potent implicit consideration for most subjects, even conservatives, when primed with affirmative action. But when asked to think consciously about affirmative action and other race-related issues, most participants bring both racial and ideological considerations to mind. This suggests an important implicit/explicit divide in thinking on racial issues that is reminiscent of some earlier studies of racial attitudes (e.g., Devine, 1989). We are reluctant to draw general conclusions from the pilot findings, however, since the student sample may be quite unrepresentative of the American public (and of principled conservatives in particular). Accordingly, I have conducted a series of follow-up studies that takes our laboratory method "on the road" to assess race and ideology with a broader sample of adult Americans.