Factor 3: Identity
16.Older people typically shouldn’t go to places where
younger people hang out.x
17.In general, older people shouldn’t hang out at places
for younger people.x
18.Generally older people shouldn’t go clubbing.
19.Older people probably should use Facebook.20.Older people shouldn’t even try to act cool.
Notes :
*,1,xSimilar items, potentially redundant, denoted as
co-varying in the structural equation model.
Copyright Michael S. North & Susan T. Fiske. Its use
for nonprofit research is freely granted, but any com-
mercial use must be cleared with the authors.
FUTURE RESEARCH DIRECTIONS
Intergroup bias measures are abundant and varied, showing useful and inventive methods for assessing the
variety of ways that stereotyping and prejudice researchers have kept busy. The field offers a lively variety of
measures for general intergroup relations (RWA, SDO, SCM), subtle forms of racism (SRS, IAT, indirect priming,
aversive racism measure), subtle forms of sexism (MSS, NS, ASI), and subtle forms of ageism (FSA, SIC). Each
has more-than-adequate psychometric properties, and most apply across cultures.
Compared with previous stereotyping and prejudice measures reported in earlier editions of this volume,
these measures of bias focus on unexamined rather than overt indicators. Some measures rely on relatively auto-
matic processes (reaction times in the IAT, indirect priming of racism, aversive racism measure) that indicate
underlying cognitive /C0evaluative associations. Some measures tap seemingly impersonal societal beliefs (SDO,
SCM), so they may seem ambiguous to respondents as evidence of bias, although they predict stereotyping, prej-
udice, and discrimination. Some measures rely on seemingly independent policy preferences whose pattern hap-
pens to predict ingroup favoritism (SRS, MSS, NS, FSA), again apparently ambiguous to respondents. Still other
measures assess ambivalent beliefs (SCM, ASI, SIC); these are evaluatively mixed across dimensions, not overtly
univalent /C0all negative or all positive /C0reactions to ingroups and outgroups. This automaticity, ambiguity, and
ambivalence allows researchers to identify contemporary forms of bias that often differ in kind from more overt,
old-fashioned forms.
More research is needed, of course. Not all measures provide complete psychometric profiles, for example,
test/C0retest reliability or nonstudent samples. Not all measures show the expected convergent or predictive valid-
ity; more evidence is needed.
Finally, societal categories are evolving, and some are neglected by bias measures (e.g., social class, religion).
Many categories intersect, and we do not know how this tempers or exaggerates individual differences in bias.
Indeed categories are becoming more volatile, uncertain, complex, and ambiguous ( Bodenhauen & Peery, 2009 ),
so measures of bias will have to respond with the times. Stay tuned.
Acknowledgments
For helpful feedback and permissions to reproduce their scales, we thank Mahzarin Banaji, Amy Cuddy, Jack Dovidio, Russell Fazio,
Maryann Fraboni, Peter Glick, Tony Greenwald, P. J. Henry, Felicia Pratto, Jim Sidanius, David Sears, Janet Swim, and Francine Tougas.
References
Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sex-
ism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology ,84(1), 111 /C0125.
Adorno, T. W., Frenkel-Brunswik, E., Levinson, D. J., & Sanford, R. N. (1950). The authoritarian personality . Oxford, England: Harper.
Akrami, N., Ekehammar, B., & Yang-Wallentin, F. (2011). Personality and social psychology factors explaining sexism. Journal of Individual
Differences ,32(3), 153 /C0160.
Alexander, M. G., Brewer, M. B., & Hermann, R. K. (1999). Images and affect: A functional analysis of out-group stereotypes. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology ,77(1), 78 /C093.
Altemeyer, B. (1988). Enemies of freedom: Understanding right-wing authoritarianism . San Francisco: Jossey-Bass.
Altemeyer, B. (1998). The other ‘authoritarian personality. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in Experimental Social Psychology (Vol. 30, pp. 47 /C092).
San Diego, CA: Academic.
Altemeyer, B. (2004). Highly dominating, highly authoritarian personalities. Journal of Social Psychology ,144(4), 421 /C0447.712 24. MEASURES OF STEREOTYPING AND PREJUDICE: BAROMETERS OF BIAS
VI. SOCIOCULTURAL INTERACTION AND CONFLICT