IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/cup/pscirm/v11y2023i2p363-373_9.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The BIAT and the AMP as measures of racial prejudice in political science: A methodological assessment

Author

Listed:
  • Clayton, Katherine
  • Horrillo, Jordan
  • Sniderman, Paul M.

Abstract

Political scientists often use measures such as the Brief Implicit Association Test (BIAT) and the Affect Misattribution Procedure (AMP) to gauge hidden or subconscious racial prejudice. However, the validity of these measures has been contested. Using data from the 2008–2009 ANES panel study—the only study we are aware of in which a high-quality, nationally representative sample of respondents took both implicit tests—we show that: (1) although political scientists use the BIAT and the AMP to measure the same thing, the relationship between them is substantively indistinguishable from zero; (2) both measures classify an unlikely proportion of whites as more favorable toward Black Americans than white Americans; and (3) substantial numbers of whites that either measure classifies as free of prejudice openly endorse anti-Black stereotypes. These results have important implications for the use of implicit measures to study racial prejudice in political science.

Suggested Citation

  • Clayton, Katherine & Horrillo, Jordan & Sniderman, Paul M., 2023. "The BIAT and the AMP as measures of racial prejudice in political science: A methodological assessment," Political Science Research and Methods, Cambridge University Press, vol. 11(2), pages 363-373, April.
    • Handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:363-373_9
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://www.cambridge.org/core/product/identifier/S2049847022000565/type/journal_article
    File Function: link to article abstract page
    Download Restriction: no
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:cup:pscirm:v:11:y:2023:i:2:p:363-373_9. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: Kirk Stebbing (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://www.cambridge.org/ram .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.