Divergent/Discriminant
Indirect racial attitudes differ from explicit ones, such as the Modern Racism Scale, as noted, although less con-
troversial topics show more correlation ( Brauer, Wasel, & Niedenthal, 2000; Fazio & Olson, 2003 ). Most two-
mode models of social cognition and attitudes (e.g., Chaiken & Trope, 1999 ;Fiske & Taylor, 2013 ) contrast an
explicit process with an implicit process, so this is not surprising, if the theory can specify when the two will and
will not correlate.
Black versus White participants show the expected interracial attitudes, as measured by the primied facilita-
tion, revealing 50 /C060% of White college students to be biased ( Fazio et al., 1995 ). (The IAT estimates 70 /C090%;
Nosek et al., 2002 .)
Construct/Factor Analytic
Like the IAT, the major dimension appears to be positive-negative evaluation. Indirect priming studies do con-
trol for prime and stimulus order, as well as counterbalancing left/right sides of positive/negative responses.
Criterion/Predictive
In the original racial attitudes study ( Fazio et al., 1995 ), the indirect attitude measure correlated .31 with the
Black experimenter’s interaction ratings and .32 with rated Black responsibility for the riots. In contrast, the
Modern Racism Scale correlated with Black responsibility and with rated (un)fairness of the Rodney-King trial
verdict, as well as rated (un)attractiveness of the Black photos, but not with the interaction ratings.
Subsequent research shows indirect racial-attitude measures predicting longevity of interracial roommate rela-
tionships ( Towles-Schwen & Fazio, 2006 ), affective reactions to expressed prejudice ( Fazio & Hilden, 2001 ), use of
racial categories ( Fazio & Dunton, 1997 ), and for certain level of motivation to control prejudice, anticipated com-
fort in cross-racial interaction ( Towles-Schwen & Fazio, 2003 ) (see Fazio & Olson, 2003 , for others related to this
and similar indirect attitudes measures).
Location
Fazio, R.H., Jackson, J.R., Dunton, B.C., & Williams, C.J. (1995). Variability in automatic activation as an unob-
trusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(6) ,
1013/C01027.
Olson, M.A., & Fazio, R.H. (2009). Implicit and explicit measures of attitudes: The perspective of the MODE
model. In R.E. Petty, R.H. Fazio, & P. Brin ˜ol (Eds.), Attitudes: Insights from the new implicit measures (pp. 19 /C063).
New York, NY: Psychology Press.
Results and Comments
Indirect priming methods have the advantage of being less obvious to participants, but the disadvantage of
being more difficult to export outside the well-controlled laboratory. Nevertheless, this technique adds critical
evidence to individual differences in the spontaneity of ingroup-positive and outgroup-negative evaluative
associations. Also developed in the context of correlating attitudes with behavior, it has useful predictive
validity.
INDIRECT PRIMING MEASURE OF RACISM
Steps
1.Baseline: response latencies to judge adjectives
(e.g., ‘pleasant,’ ‘awful’) as good/bad
2.‘Face-learning task’: 16 grey-scale photos of White,
Black, Asian, and male, female faces
3.Yes/C0no speeded recognition test of photos
4.Priming (repeated):
(a)View 1 of 48 color photos of Black, White, Asian,
Hispanic, and male, female faces (315 ms)(b)135 ms interval
(c)View one of 24 valenced adjectives
(d)Indicate whether positive/negative
Notes :
Procedure schematized by authors from Fazio et al.,
1995 .
Reproduced with permission.698 24. MEASURES OF STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE: BAROMETERS OF BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT