540 al Social Psychology 40(2004)535-542 n ther e i against African participants were told that we already had Induced Forced rat Explicit prejudice SD 1.01 158 163 forced position condition,participants were told that Note.Higher values indicate higher levels of prejudice ate or or ag A F nd tha they had been assigned to generate arguments in favor within-subiects factor and the second as between-sub jects factor.This analysis revealed a significant two-way of an increase.Afterwards,participants wer adminis attit measures of explic type and assignmen and thanked for their part affected by dissonance manipulations,F(1,36)=.01 Explici .92. ess negat tha ask ants we F1,36)=8.02,p=008.2-18Po10 can Am ericans,Cauca sian Americans)on scales ranging from I (very negative)to 7(very positive) Implicit- ion Implicit attitudes Implicit attitudes were assessed with an IAT designed ever,replicating the pattern obtained in Experiment 1 this correlation was driven by a relatively pronounce conditi 35 each consisted of a total of 20 trials.The two combined tions.in contrast.explicit and implicit attitudes showed tasks each comprised 80 trials.Order of trials was ran mo 25,p= Even tho dons did not he cor participan The respsoms.W responses were indicated with the word "ERROR =1.75.n=04. appearing for 1000ms below the center of the screen. Results Discussion Preliminary analyses Results from Experiment 2 corroborate the assump ce changes explic culated by subtracting A ans from rati ng denobLuno for Caucas ans over african Americans explicit prejudice against African Americans after writ. 95).IAT-scores for implicit attitudes an essay in favor of a general increase of scholar mgto the p ships for African Americ stude ts und condition fron-365to+476msM=160SD_15 ores range trast wa unafected by dissonance manipulations.Furthermore men titudes vere firs st standardized by a z-transformation and o.J .Dunton.Wlam 195:Gawrons employ the psychology department to gather arguments on both sides of this issue, which it will then use in making an educated decision. In the induced compliance condition, participants were told that we already had collected enough arguments against a policy change and that we would be pleased if they were willing to generate arguments in favor of a policy change, even though they were of course free to choose either position. In the forced position condition, participants were told that each participant would be randomly assigned to gener￾ate arguments either in favor or against an increase of scholarships for African American students and that they had been assigned to generate arguments in favor of an increase. Afterwards, participants were adminis￾tered measures of explicit and implicit prejudice against African Americans. Finally, participants were debriefed and thanked for their participation. Explicit attitudes Explicit attitudes were assessed with rating scales, asking participants to indicate their personal feelings toward a number of different ethnic groups (e.g., Afri￾can Americans, Caucasian Americans) on scales ranging from 1 (very negative) to 7 (very positive). Implicit attitudes Implicit attitudes were assessed with an IAT designed to assess implicit preference for Caucasians over African Americans. The IAT was conceptually identical to Greenwald et al. (1998). The three discrimination tasks each consisted of a total of 20 trials. The two combined tasks each comprised 80 trials. Order of trials was ran￾domized for each participant. The response-stimulus interval following correct responses was 250 ms. Wrong responses were indicated with the word ‘‘ERROR!’’ appearing for 1000 ms below the center of the screen. Results Preliminary analyses Explicit attitude scores were calculated by subtracting ratings for African Americans from ratings for Cauca￾sian Americans, with higher scores indicating a stronger preference for Caucasians over African Americans (M ¼ :42, SD ¼ :95). IAT-scores for implicit attitudes were calculated according to the procedures described in Experiment 1 (Cronbach
s a ¼ :80). IAT-scores ranged from )365 to +476 ms (M ¼ 160, SD ¼ 156). Cognitive dissonance Order of assessment did not affect any of the present dependent measures, and was thus excluded from the following analyses. Indices for explicit and implicit at￾titudes were first standardized by a z-transformation and then submitted to a 2 (attitude type)
2 (essay assign￾ment) mixed-model ANOVA with the first variable as a within-subjects factor and the second as between-sub￾jects factor. This analysis revealed a significant two-way interaction of attitude type and essay assignment, F ð1; 36Þ ¼ 4:10, p ¼ :05, g2 ¼ :10 (see Table 2). Whereas implicit attitudes toward African Americans were un￾affected by dissonance manipulations, F ð1; 36Þ ¼ :01, p ¼ :92, g2 ¼ :00, explicit attitudes toward African Americans were less negative under induced compliance conditions than under forced position conditions, F ð1; 36Þ ¼ 8:02, p ¼ :008, g2 ¼ :18. Implicit–explicit correlations Overall, explicit and implicit attitudes revealed a non￾significant positive correlation (r ¼ :18, p ¼ :29). How￾ever, replicating the pattern obtained in Experiment 1, this correlation was driven by a relatively pronounced positive correlation under forced position conditions (r ¼ :35, p ¼ :13).5 Under induced compliance condi￾tions, in contrast, explicit and implicit attitudes showed a moderate negative correlation (r ¼ :25, p ¼ :31). Even though these correlations did not reach the con￾ventional level of statistical significance, the difference between the two correlations was statistically significant, z ¼ 1:75, p ¼ :04. Discussion Results from Experiment 2 corroborate the assump￾tion that cognitive dissonance changes explicit, but not implicit attitudes. Replicating the pattern obtained in Experiment 1, participants exhibited a lower level of explicit prejudice against African Americans after writ￾ing an essay in favor of a general increase of scholar￾ships for African American students under conditions of low situational pressure than under conditions of high situational pressure. Implicit prejudice, in contrast, was unaffected by dissonance manipulations. Furthermore, Table 2 Means and SD of explicit and implicit prejudice against African Americans as a function of essay assignment conditions, Experiment 2 Induced compliance Forced position Explicit prejudice M .00 .80 SD .69 1.01 Implicit prejudice M 158 163 SD 114 190 Note. Higher values indicate higher levels of prejudice. 5 The somewhat lower correlation under forced position conditions obtained in Experiment 2 might be due to the fact that only individuals low in motivation to control prejudiced reactions exhibit a high correlation between explicit and implicit prejudice, but not people high in motivation to control (e.g., Banse & Gawronski, 2003; Dunton & Fazio, 1997; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Gawronski, Geschke, & Banse, 2003b). 540 B. Gawronski, F. Strack / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 40 (2004) 535–542