Psychology and the Social Scientific Construction of Prejudice: Lay Encounters with the Implicit Association Test
Total Page:16
File Type:pdf, Size:1020Kb
Psychology and the Social Scientific Construction of Prejudice: Lay Encounters with the Implicit Association Test by Jeffery Yen A thesis submitted in conformity with the requirements for the degree of Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology University of Toronto © Copyright by Jeffery Yen 2013 Psychology and the Social Scientific Construction of Prejudice: Lay Encounters with the Implicit Association Test Jeffery Yen Doctor of Philosophy Department of Psychology University of Toronto 2013 Abstract Implicit prejudice, and in particular, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), are paradigmatic examples of psychological concepts and research methods that have recently enjoyed great publicity and accessibility. However, little is known about the possible reflexive consequences of this popularization for the public understanding of prejudice, and by implication, for the formulation of social policy aimed at the reduction of prejudice and racism. Specifically, how does the public interpret and contextualize the claims of the IAT and implicit prejudice? With what social and political preoccupations does this operationalization of implicit prejudice resonate? Furthermore, how do members of the public experience and interpret the IAT as both a scientific instrument and as a bearer of psychological truth? In answer to these questions, this dissertation comprises a report of two empirical studies of public encounters with the IAT and the concepts of implicit prejudice. The first of these focused on popular responses to IAT research in the New York Times. Employing a discourse analytic approach to reader comments, it identified the social and psychological concerns against which the public makes sense of the IAT. In responding to the IAT, readers drew on skeptical and confessional discourses to position themselves reflexively in relation to its claims. I argue that these ii discourses constitute a space within which strong injunctions to self-scrutiny, impartiality and objectivity are established as moral-psychological ideals. Building on these findings, the second study examined the IAT as a discursive practice through a focus on the lived experience of taking the test. Recruited participants took the IAT, and were subsequently interviewed to elicit moment-by-moment accounts of this process. Hermeneutic-phenomenological analysis of these accounts revealed thematic concerns that both resonated with and augmented those in the analysis of public discourse. In particular, the IAT was experienced as a vivid demonstration of the operationalization of "implicit bias". I argue that the test embodies and communicates this paradigm to test-takers, and therefore functions as a psychological pedagogical tool. The dissertation closes by discussing the implications of these analyses for public understandings of, and responses to, prejudice. iii Acknowledgments This dissertation could not have been completed without the help and support of an entire community of colleagues, friends, family and furry creatures, many of whom I cannot name here. I would like to thank my advisor, Romin Tafarodi, for his unflagging encouragement and wise guidance throughout the PhD process; and the members of my thesis committee: Geoff MacDonald, whose openness and faith in me have got me through some especially dark moments; and Michel Ferrari, whose creativity and insight have helped me shape my ideas in this thesis. My appreciation also goes to my friends and colleagues, Maciek Harten, Charles Hong, Grant Otsuki and Alice Kim, fellow travellers and contributors of ideas on the long PhD road who have helped to lighten the load; the undergraduate research assistants that have joined me along the way and contributed in no small way to the production of this research; and my research participants, without whose patience and willingness to be interviewed I would have no thesis. And finally, and most importantly, I would like to thank Alicia, my partner and soul mate. Through many trials and tribulations, your love, sacrifice and support enabled me the privilege of attaining this goal. This thesis is dedicated to “Spencer” (and Reg and Arch)! iv Table of Contents Acknowledgments ......................................................................................................................... iv! Table of Contents .......................................................................................................................... v! List of Tables ................................................................................................................................. ix! List of Figures ................................................................................................................................ x! List of Appendices ........................................................................................................................ xi! Chapter 1 Introduction ................................................................................................................. 1! 1! Overview and structure of the thesis .......................................................................................... 1! 2! Context ....................................................................................................................................... 2! 2.1! Psychology, culture, and subjectivity .................................................................................. 4! 2.2! Psychology and ideology .................................................................................................... 5! 2.3! Psychology in historical context .......................................................................................... 6! 2.3.1! Trends, fads and the history of social psychology .................................................. 7! 2.3.2! Skepticism and psychology’s public identity .......................................................... 9! 2.4! Implicit Social Cognition .................................................................................................. 10! 2.4.1! The prejudice problematic ..................................................................................... 12! 2.5! Theoretical orientation ...................................................................................................... 13! 2.5.1! Overview ............................................................................................................... 13! 2.5.2! Discourse, culture and power ................................................................................ 14! 2.5.3! The analysis of discourse ...................................................................................... 17! 2.5.4! Science and society ............................................................................................... 19! 2.5.5! Psychological science and public reflexivity ........................................................ 20! 2.5.6! Cultures of science ................................................................................................ 20! v 2.5.7! Science as culture .................................................................................................. 22! 2.5.8! Summary ............................................................................................................... 23! 2.6! Historicizing the study of race and prejudice in social psychology .................................. 24! 2.6.1! Overview ............................................................................................................... 24! 2.6.2! From “race psychology” to “irrational prejudice” ................................................ 25! 3! Summary ................................................................................................................................... 33! Chapter 2 Study 1: Implict prejudice, self and society in the New York Times ..................... 36! 1! Overview .................................................................................................................................. 36! 2! Rationale ................................................................................................................................... 36! 2.1! Prejudice in public discussion ........................................................................................... 36! 2.2! The IAT and public participation ...................................................................................... 38! 3! Methods .................................................................................................................................... 40! 3.1! The New York Times ........................................................................................................ 40! 3.1.1! Reader demographics ............................................................................................ 41! 3.1.2! Selection of texts ................................................................................................... 42! 3.1.3! Features of the journalistic articles ........................................................................ 43! 3.2! Analytical approach ........................................................................................................... 44! 4! Analysis .................................................................................................................................... 47! 4.1! Overview ..........................................................................................................................