Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34

Contents lists available at ScienceDirect

Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp

Wealthy Whites and poor Blacks: Implicit associations between racial groups T
and wealth predict explicit opposition toward helping the poor
Jazmin L. Brown-Iannuzzia, , Erin Cooleyb, Stephanie E. McKeea, Charly Hydena
⁎

a
University of Kentucky, United States of America
b
Colgate University, United States of America

ARTICLE INFO ABSTRACT

Handling editor: Sarah J Gervais The current research investigates whether automatic associations between race and social class predict delib-
Keywords: erative attitudes toward wealth redistribution policies. In three studies, we found that participants were sig-
Implicit attitudes nificantly more likely to associate African Americans (vs. White Americans) with the concept of poor in an
Prejudice implicit task. In addition, we found that this implicit association between poor and African Americans predicted
Political psychology explicit attitudes toward wealth redistribution (Study 1)—an effect mediated by the belief that redistributive
Social cognition policies benefit African Americans over White Americans (Study 2). Further, these associations held when
Income inequality controlling for implicit affective associations and explicit prejudice. Manipulating people's metacognitive beliefs
about the validity of their implicit associations shifted whether implicit Black-poor associations predicted sup-
port for wealth redistribution (Study 3). Overall, these findings suggest race/class associations are well-learned,
spontaneously activated, and may predict explicit policy attitudes toward wealth redistribution above and be-
yond implicit or explicit affective prejudice.

1. Introduction strongest predictor of opposition toward welfare policies was explicit

Economic inequality is rising to historic highs (Saez & Zucman,
2014; Wolff, 2002). Although most Americans would prefer a more
equitable distribution of wealth (Norton & Ariely, 2011), redistributive
policies remain controversial (e.g., Ashok, Kuziemko, & Washington,
2015; McCall & Kenworthy, 2009). This controversy may be, in part,
based on racial bias. That is, the extent to which people automatically
associate race and class may predict deliberative attitudes toward
wealth redistributive policies.
1.1. Explicit associations between race and class
Historical factors, including slavery and institutionalized racism,
created a wealth gap between Black and White Americans that persists
today (e.g., Pew, 2016; Quillian, Pager, Hexel, & Midtboen, 2017). The
macro-level racial wealth gap may inform explicit stereotypical asso-
ciations between being poor and Black (Brown-Iannuzzi, Dotsch,
Cooley, & Payne, 2017; Cox & Devine, 2015; Freeman, Penner,
Saperstein, Scheutz, & Ambady, 2011; Lei & Bodenhausen, 2017).
Further, opposition toward redistributive policies may be informed by
negative attitudes toward Blacks because people assume poor people are
Black. Consistent with this explanation, Gilens (1995) found that the
negative attitudes toward Black people (see also Gilens, 1996; Iyengar,
1990). However, research has not investigated whether implicit asso-
ciations between Black people and poverty predict attitudes toward
redistribution.
1.2. Implicit semantic associations between race and class
In contrast to explicit attitudes, which are deliberative and con-
trolled, implicit attitudes are spontaneous reactions that are difficult to
control (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006). When the attitude object is
controversial and socially sensitive, implicit attitudes are more likely to
diverge due to social desirability concerns (e.g., Dovidio, Kawakami, &
Gaertner, 2002; Fazio & Olson, 2003; Nosek, 2005). For example, ex-
plicit attitudes toward Black people have become more positive over
time (e.g., Bergsieker, Leslie, Constantine, & Fiske, 2012), yet implicit
attitudes remain relatively more negative, suggesting that people may
be controlling their explicit attitudes due to social desirability concerns
(e.g., Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Payne, Vuletich,
& Lundberg, 2017). In addition, research suggests that implicit attitudes
can independently predict explicit attitudes and behavior (e.g.,
Cameron, Brown-Iannuzzi, & Payne, 2012; Greenwald et al., 2009).
Thus, implicit attitudes may be particularly important when

⁎
Corresponding author at: 171 Funkhouser Dr., University of Kentucky, Lexington, KY 40506, United States of America.
E-mail address: jazmin.bi@uky.edu (J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi).

https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.11.006
Received 9 February 2018; Received in revised form 28 November 2018; Accepted 28 November 2018
0022-1031/ © 2018 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al.
investigating attitudes toward Black Americans.
Traditionally, implicit attitudes were assessed on one dimension:
valence (Cameron et al., 2012; Greenwald et al., 2009). However, im-
plicit negativity toward Black people may reflect prejudice or the belief
that Black Americans are mistreated in the U.S. (Andreychik & Gill,
2012; also Lee, Lindquist, & Payne, 2018; Uhlmann, Brescoll, & Paluck,
2006). Because implicit semantic associations are more specific, they
may, at times, predict explicit attitudes better than implicit valence
associations (Gawronski & Ye, 2014; Imhoff, Schmidt, Bernhardt,
Dierksmeier, & Banse, 2011; Sava et al., 2012; Ye & Gawronski, 2018).
Based on this research, we reasoned that the specificity of implicit se-
mantic associations (i.e., Black/poor) may be important when pre-
dicting explicit redistribution policy attitudes.
1.3. The belief that redistribution benefits black people
Implicit race/class associations may only be relevant to policy
attitudes to the extent people assume redistributive policies pre-
ferentially benefit Black Americans. Research suggests that when
people think about redistributive policies (particularly welfare), they
tend to imagine these policies benefit Black people (e.g., Brown-
Iannuzzi et al., 2017; Gilens, 1995, 1996; Sears & Cirin, 1985; Wetts &
Willer, 2018). However, to our knowledge research has not directly
measured the belief that redistributive policies benefit Black Amer-
icans. Thus, measuring this belief may provide insight into the psy-
chological mechanism linking implicit racial/class associations to
explicit policy attitudes.
In addition, validating or invaliding implicit race/class associa-
tions may add insight into the relation between implicit associations
and explicit policy attitudes. In particular, people's thoughts about
their implicit associations (i.e., their metacognitions) may affect the
implicit-explicit attitude relation because these metacognitions may
reinforce or diminish the initial association (e.g., Gawronski &
Bodenhausen, 2006; Petty, Briñol, & DeMaree, 2007). For example,
previous research has shown that people may invalidate an auto-
matic attitude because it is based on a recently discredited view
(e.g., Gregg, Seibt, & Banaji, 2006; Petty, Tormala, Briñol, & Jarvis,
2006) or because they believed their implicit affective reaction was
unintentional (Cooley, Payne, Loersch, & Lei, 2015; Cooley, Payne,
& Phillips, 2014). There are many ways that metacognitions can
influence the implicit-explicit relation such as by temporarily re-
ducing the activation of the implicit association (e.g., Mitchell, De
Houwer, & Lovibond, 2009) or temporarily reducing the influence of
the implicit attitude on subsequent judgments (e.g., Gawronski &
Bodenhausen, 2006). Regardless of the process by which metacog-
nitions influence the implicit-explicit association, the result would
be the same - implicit semantic race/class associations should no
longer correlate with explicit policy attitudes when people are led to
think of those associations as invalid.
1.4. The current research
We extend upon previous research in several ways. First, in Study 1,
we investigate whether participants have implicit semantic associations
between race (Black and White Americans) and social class (Poor and
Rich). We also investigate whether these implicit semantic associations
predict explicit attitudes toward redistribution, controlling for explicit
prejudice. In Study 2, we investigate whether the belief that Black (vs.
White) Americans benefit from redistributive policies mediates the re-
lation between implicit race/class associations and explicit attitudes
toward redistribution. Further, we investigate whether implicit se-
mantic associations predict explicit attitudes, controlling for implicit
valence associations. Finally, in Study 3, we test whether metacognitive
thoughts about the validity of one's implicit race/class associations alter
the implicit-explicit attitude correspondence.
We report all measures, manipulations, and exclusions. Consistent
27
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34
with open practices, all studies were pre-registered,1 and materials and
data are available at an online repository.2 Studies were run using In-
quisit 5 (Millisecond, 2016).
2. Study 1 method
2.1. Power and participants
We determined we needed a minimum sample of 199 to have ade-
quate power (0.80) to detect a small effect (d = 0.20) in a repeated
measure design (G ∗ Power 3; Faul, Erdfelder, Lang, & Buchner, 2007).
We needed a minimum sample of 117 to have adequate power (0.80) to
detect a small-to-medium effect (f2 = 0.085) in a multiple regression
model. To account for attrition, we aimed to collect N = 220 and to end
data collection when we anticipated having N = 300.3
Participants (N = 284) were recruited from the psychology parti-
cipant pool. Following standard procedures (Payne & Lundberg, 2014;
Payne, Cheng, Govorun, & Stewart, 2005), five participants were ex-
cluded for only pressing one button during the Semantic Misattribution
Procedure (SMP; Imhoff et al., 2011; Payne et al., 2005). In addition,
because the SMP utilizes Chinese symbols, we investigated whether
participants should be excluded based on being able to read or under-
stand Chinese (Payne & Lundberg, 2014). No participants reported
being able to read Chinese, so no participants were excluded on this
basis. Previous research has found that Blacks tend to have different
explanations for being poor (Kluegel & Smith, 1986) and different at-
titudes toward redistributive policies than do other racial/ethnic groups
(Dawson, 1984).4 Thus, because our hypotheses were central to non-
Black participants, we excluded Black participants. Our final sample
was N = 243 (46 men, 197 women). Participants self-reported being
White (219), Hispanic (15), Asian (6), Native American (2), and one
participant did not report race/ethnicity. Participants identified being
Republican (113), Democrat (72), independent (47), and “other” (10),
and one participant did not report political affiliation.
2.2. Procedure
Participants completed 80 trials of the SMP (Imhoff et al., 2011;
Payne et al., 2005). On each trial, participants were presented with a
prime photo (175 ms), a blank screen (125 ms), a target photo (100 ms),
and then a visual noise mask remained on the screen until a response
was entered.5 The target photos were Chinese ideographs (Payne et al.,
2005). Participants were asked to determine whether the Chinese
1
Study 1 preregistration: http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=g5uq9a.
Study 2 preregistration: https://osf.io/938ad/register/564d31db8c5e4a7
c9694b2be.Study 3 preregistration: http://aspredicted.org/blind.php?x=
pe62wt.
2
To find study materials and data, please visit: https://osf.io/xrk6j/.
3
Deviation from the desired sample size reflects issues related to collecting
participants from the university participant pool. Specifically, the university
advises researchers to run all posted experimental sessions to avoid student
complaints. We aimed to over-sample because we did not know exactly how
many participants we would be able to keep in our sample once data collection
ended.
4
For exploratory purposes, we analyzed the data using all participants and
different combinations of participant exclusions across all studies. By in large,
the results remain consistent with what is reported in the current manuscript.
The only difference is in Study 3 where the results seem to hinge on excluding
African American participants. Based on the research and theories reported in
the manuscript, this finding is consistent with our expectation. All of these
analyses in the Supplemental Materials.
5
We sought to present the prime supraliminally because previous research
suggests that a quick, yet clear presentation of the prime may enhance the
misattribution of emotions/attitudes onto the ambiguous target item (Cameron
et al., 2012). Thus, we decided to use the presentation length described in the
manuscript.
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al.
ideographs meant ‘rich’ (coded 0) or ‘poor’ (coded 1). There were 40
critical trials where the prime photo was either of a Black or White male
(α = 0.88),6 and 40 non-critical trials where the prime photo was a
positive or negative image from the International Affective Picture
System (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 2008). We created one index that
reflected the average response preceded by Black primes and one index
that reflected the average response preceded by White primes (higher
numbers indicated a greater proportion of ‘poor’ responses).
Next, participants were asked about their support for redistributive
policies (Brown-Iannuzzi, Lundberg, Kay, & Payne, 2015). A sample
item is: “In general, the wealthy should be taxed to provide benefits to
the poor,” (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree; all items are re-
ported in the Supplementary materials). We averaged these items to
create one index which assessed support for redistribution (higher
numbers indicated greater support; α = 0.89, M = 3.64, SD = 1.03).
We measured explicit attitudes toward Blacks using the Symbolic
Racism Scale (higher numbers indicated more symbolic racism; Henry &
Sears, 2002; α = 0.65, M = 0.04, SD = 0.52), party affiliation, and poli-
tical ideology (1 = very liberal; 6 = very conservative; M = 3.05, SD = 1.02)
as previous research found these measures predict attitudes toward redis-
tribution (e.g., Gilens, 1995). We assessed demographic information in-
cluding whether participants could understand Chinese. For exploratory
purposes, we included feeling thermometers assessing how warm or cold
participants felt toward Black, White, Asian, and Hispanic people (0 = very
cold/unfavorable; 100 = very warm/favorable), and internal and external
motivations to respond without prejudice (Plant & Devine, 1998).
3. Results
We hypothesized that participants would be more likely to associate
Black (vs. White) primes with the concept of poor and conducted a
repeated measure ANOVA with prime type (Black vs. White) as the
within-subject factor. Consistent with our hypothesis, participants were
significantly more likely to think the Chinese ideographs meant ‘poor’
when preceded by a Black prime (M = 0.63, SD = 0.27, 95% CI: [0.60,
0.67]) than when preceded by a White prime (M = 0.49, SD = 0.24,
95% CI: [0.46, 0.52]), F(1, 242) = 59.45, p < .001, ηp2 = 0.20.
Next, we inspected the bivariate correlations (see Table 1). Results
revealed that greater Black/poor automatic associations were asso-
ciated with less support for redistribution, r(243) = −0.18, p = .006,
95% CI: [−0.30, −0.04]. There was no relation between White/poor
automatic associations and support for redistribution, r(243) = −0.06,
p = .39, 95% CI: [−0.18, 0.06].
We regressed support for redistribution onto the proportion of ‘poor’
responses toward each prime type to investigate whether prime type
uniquely predicted support for redistribution (see Table 2). All variables
were standardized before analysis. Consistent with the bivariate cor-
relation results, Black/poor automatic associations uniquely predicted
less support for redistribution (see Fig. 1), b = −0.19, SE = 0.07,
p = .009. There was no relation between White/poor automatic asso-
ciations and support for redistribution, b = 0.002, SE = 0.07, p = .98.
For exploratory purposes, we controlled for party affiliation, poli-
tical ideology and symbolic racism, variables that are known to predict
support for redistribution (e.g., Gilens, 1995). Political ideology and
symbolic racism were standardized, and party affiliation was dummy
coded (1 = Republican) prior to entering them into model.7 When these
6
Primes were taken from B.K. Payne's image database and were previously
pretested to be matched on perceived attractiveness, age, likeability, and pro-
totypicality of the individual's respective race/ethnicity (Payne, Brown-
Iannuzzi, & Panter, in preparation).
7 8
Across all studies, we investigated multicollinearity by considering the size
of the variance inflation factor (VIF) for each predictor. All VIFs remained
below traditional cutoffs (Kutner, Nachtshem, & Neter, 2004; Sheather, 2009),
suggesting the magnitude of multicollinearity was not high across all studies.
28
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34
control variables were added, Black/poor automatic associations still
predicted less support for redistribution, although significance dropped
to marginal, b = −0.09, SE = 0.05, p = .088.
4. Discussion
Overall, these results are consistent with our hypotheses - partici-
pants were more likely to implicitly associate poor with Black (vs. White)
Americans, and the extent to which people implicitly associated race
with class predicted opposition to redistributive policies. Next, we sought
to extend our findings by investigating whether the belief that Blacks are
more likely than Whites to benefit from redistribution policies mediated
the implicit-explicit relation found in Study 1. Further, we investigated
whether implicit semantic associations uniquely predicted explicit policy
attitudes, controlling for implicit valence associations using the Affect
Misattribution Procedure (AMP; Payne et al., 2005).
5. Study 2 method
5.1. Power and participants
We determined that we needed a minimum sample of 199 to have
adequate power (0.80) to detect a small effect (d = 0.20) in a repeated
measure design (Faul et al., 2007). In addition, we would need at least
185 to have adequate power (0.80) to detect a small-to-medium effect
(f2 = 0.085) in a multiple regression model. To account for attrition, we
aimed to collect N = 400.8
Participants (N = 431) were recruited from MTurk. Again, we ex-
cluded Black individuals. We also excluded 53 participants who could
read Chinese, 27 who pressed one button throughout the AMP, and 17
participants who pressed one button throughout the SMP. Our final
sample was N = 306 (144 men, 155 women, 1 ‘other’, 6 participants
did not report gender). Participants were White (247), Asian (22),
Hispanic (20), multiracial (6), ‘other’ (3), Native American (2), and 6
participants did not report race/ethnicity. Participants identified being
Democrat (128), independent (84), Republican (76), or “other” (12),
and 6 participants did not report political affiliation.
5.2. Procedure
First, participants completed the implicit measures. To avoid order
effects, participants were randomly assigned to complete the AMP or
SMP first. The SMP procedure and scoring were identical to the design in
Study 1 (α = 0.77). The AMP was similar to the SMP, except responses
were ‘pleasant’ (coded 0) and ‘unpleasant’ (coded 1; α = 0.82). All of the
prime photos, target photos, and timing parameters were the same in the
AMP as in the SMP. Similar to the SMP, we created one index that re-
flected the average response preceded by Black primes and one index
that reflected the average response preceded by Black primes (higher
numbers indicated a greater proportion of ‘unpleasant’ responses).
Next, participants completed a three-item measure that assessed
their belief that Blacks are more likely to receive the benefits of wealth
redistribution than are Whites. These items were: (1) “African
Americans are more likely to receive welfare assistance than are
Whites,” (2) “African Americans are more likely to benefit from wealth
redistribution than are Whites,” and (3) “Welfare programs are de-
signed to benefit African Americans” (1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly
agree). We averaged these items to create one index (higher numbers
indicated a greater belief that Blacks benefited from redistribution;
α = 0.82, M = 3.44, SD = 1.24).
We anticipated a higher attrition rate on MTurk than in our university
participant pool, so we over-recruited by a sizeable number. Deviations from
the desired sample size goal were entirely due to Mechanical Turk Software and
were outside of our control.
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34

Table 1
Study 1 correlations and 95% Confidence Intervals between measures of interest.
1 2 3 4 5

1 SMP Black primes –

2 SMP White primes 0.33⁎⁎ –

[0.20, 0.45]
3 Support for redistribution −0.18⁎⁎ −0.06 –
[−0.30, −0.04] [−0.18, 0.07]
4 Symbolic racism 0.14⁎ −0.10 −0.57⁎⁎ –
[0.01, 0.27] [−0.21, 0.01] [−0.66, −0.47]
5 Party affiliation (1 = Republican) 0.11 0.13⁎ −0.54⁎⁎ 0.49⁎⁎ –
[−0.02, 0.24] [0.004, 0.26] [−0.62, −0.45] [0.40, 0.57]
6 Political ideology 0.08 0.13⁎ −0.55⁎⁎ 0.53⁎⁎ 0.60⁎⁎
[−0.06, 0.21] [0.01, 0.25] [−0.64, −0.45] [0.42, 0.62] [0.53, 0.68]

Note: Support for redistribution is coded such that higher numbers represent more support. Symbolic racism is coded such that higher numbers represent more
symbolic racism. For simplicity and parsimony, we dummy coded Party Affiliation such that 1 = Republican and 0 = democrats, independents, and people identified
as another political affiliation or did not report. Political ideology is coded such that higher numbers represent more conservative (as opposed to liberal) ideology.
95% confidence intervals for the correlation coefficients appear below the coefficient in brackets. ⁎⁎ Denotes p < .01. ⁎ Denotes p < .05.

Table 2
Study 1 regression coefficients and associated standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and significance levels when predicting support for redistribution.
b SE 95% CI p-Value b SE 95% CI p-value

SMP White primes 0.002 0.07 [−0.14, 0.14] .98 0.003 0.06 [−0.11, 0.12] .97
SMP African American primes −0.19 0.07 [−0.32, −0.05] .009 −0.09 0.05 [−0.20, 0.01] .088
Political ideology −0.23 0.07 [−0.36, −0.10] .001
Party affiliation (1 = Republican) −0.48 0.13 [−0.73, −0.23] < .001
Symbolic racism −0.63 0.12 [−0.86, −0.39] < .001

Note: Support for redistribution is coded such that higher numbers represent more support. Symbolic racism is coded such that higher numbers represent more
symbolic racism. Political ideology is coded such that higher numbers represent more conservative (as opposed to liberal) ideology. Party affiliation was dummy
coded such that 1 = Republican. All continuous variables were standardized prior to entering the model.

more opposition; α = 0.93, M = 3.08, SD = 1.32). Then, participants

completed the same nine items assessing support for redistributive
polices from Study 1 (α = 0.92, M = 4.28, SD = 1.20).
Finally, participants completed the Symbolic Racism Scale (Henry &
Sears, 2002; α = 0.88, M = 0.00, SD = 0.75), party affiliation and po-
litical ideology (M = 2.62, SD = 1.21). We also measured demographic
information including whether participants could understand Chinese.

6. Results

Consistent with previous research, participants were significantly

Fig. 1. The partial plot predicting support for redistribution from the propor-
tion of ‘poor’ responses when preceded by an African American prime, con-
trolling for the proportion of ‘poor’ responses when preceded by a White prime.
All variables were standardized prior to entering the model. Line represents the
best fit line.
Participants also completed items assessing their redistribution
policy preferences. First, participants completed six items assessing
their attitudes toward welfare policies and the poor. A sample item was:
“Most people on welfare could get by without it if they really tried,”
(1 = strongly disagree; 6 = strongly agree; Lei & Bodenhausen, 2017; see
Supplemental materials). We averaged these items to create one index
which assessed opposition toward welfare (higher numbers indicated
more likely to think the Chinese ideographs were unpleasant when
preceded by Black primes (M = 0.46, SD = 0.21, 95% CI: [0.44, 0.49])
than White primes (M = 0.42, SD = 0.20, 95% CI: [0.40, 0.45]), F(1,
305) = 8.49, p = .004, ηp2 = 0.03. And, replicating Study 1, partici-
pants were significantly more likely to think the Chinese ideographs
meant ‘poor’ when preceded by Black primes (M = 0.53, SD = 0.21,
95% CI: [0.50, 0.55]) than White primes (M = 0.48, SD = 0.19, 95%
CI: [0.46, 0.50]), F(1, 305) = 10.38, p = .001, ηp2 = 0.03.
Table 3 presents bivariate correlations between the implicit and
explicit measures of interest. We found greater Black/poor automatic
associations were associated with a greater belief that redistribution
policies benefit Blacks over Whites, r(302) = 0.22, p < .001, 95% CI:
[0.11, 0.33]. There was no relation between White/poor automatic
associations and the belief that redistribution policies benefit Blacks
over Whites, r(302) = 0.11, p = .06, 95% CI: [−0.01, 0.22].9
9
Unexpectedly, the results revealed that more White/poor associations were
associated more negative attitudes toward welfare, r(304) = 0.16, p = .004,
95% CI: [0.05, 0.27], and less support for redistribution, r(303) = −0.15,
p = .01, 95% CI: [−0.26, −0.04]. Given these findings were unexpected and
did not replicate across studies, we hesitate to interpret them.

29
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34

Table 3
Study 2 correlation between measures of interest with confidence intervals.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

1 AMP White primes

2 AMP Black primes 0.42⁎⁎

[0.32, 0.50]
3 SMP White primes 0.27⁎⁎ 0.15⁎⁎
[0.16, 0.37] [0.04, 0.26]
4 SMP Black primes 0.04 0.35⁎⁎ 0.28⁎⁎
[−0.08, 0.15] [0.25, 0.45] [0.17, 0.38]
5 Black benefit 0.10 0.24⁎⁎ 0.11 0.22⁎⁎
[−0.01, 0.21] [0.13, 0.34] [−0.01, 0.22] [0.11, 0.33]
6 Negative welfare attitudes 0.09 0.14⁎ 0.16⁎⁎ 0.10 0.50⁎⁎
[−0.02, 0.20] [0.03, 0.35] [0.05, 0.27] [−0.01, [0.41, 0.58]
0.21]
7 Support for redistribution −0.13⁎ −0.15⁎⁎ −0.15⁎⁎ −0.08 −0.41⁎⁎ −0.64⁎⁎
[−0.24, [−0.26, [−0.26, [−0.19, [−0.50, [−0.70,
−0.02] −0.04] −0.04] 0.03] −0.31] −0.57]
8 Symbolic racism 0.01 0.13⁎ 0.10 0.12⁎ 0.48⁎⁎ 0.66⁎⁎ −0.63⁎⁎
[−0.10, 0.12] [0.02, 0.24] [−0.01, 0.21] [0.002, 0.23] [0.39, 0.56] [0.59, 0.72] [−0.69,
−0.55]
9 Political ideology 0.00 0.07 0.11 0.08 0.40⁎⁎ 0.56⁎⁎ −0.56⁎⁎ 0.63⁎⁎
[−0.11, 0.11] [−0.04, 0.18] [−0.01, 0.22] [−0.03, [0.30, 0.49] [0.47, 0.63] [−0.63, [0.56,
0.19] −0.48] 0.69]
10 Party affiliation 0.05 0.19⁎⁎ 0.09 0.09 0.27⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎ −0.39⁎⁎ 0.40⁎⁎ 0.63⁎⁎
(1 = Republican) [−0.07, 0.16] [0.08, 0.29] [−0.03, 0.20] [−0.02, [0.17, 0.38] [0.30, 0.49] [−0.48, [0.30, [0.55,
0.20] −0.29] 0.49] 0.69]

Note: Black Benefit indicates the belief that Blacks (vs. Whites) benefit from redistributive policies (higher numbers represent a greater belief). Support for redis-
tribution is coded such that higher numbers represent more support. Opposition toward welfare is coded such that higher numbers represent more opposition.
Symbolic racism is coded such that higher numbers represent more symbolic racism. Political ideology is coded such that higher numbers represent more con-
servative (as opposed to liberal) ideology. ⁎⁎ Denotes p < .01. ⁎ Denotes p < .05.

Table 4
Study 2 regression coefficients and associated standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and significance levels when dependent variables of interest.
b SE 95% CI p-Value b SE 95% CI p-Value

Predicting the belief redistribution benefits African Americans (over White Americans)
AMP White primes 0.02 0.07 [−0.12, 0.16] 0.78 0.05 0.06 [−0.07, 0.17] 0.42
AMP Black primes 0.19 0.07 [0.05, 0.33] 0.008 0.13 0.06 [0, 0.25] 0.05
SMP White primes 0.04 0.07 [−0.09, 0.17] 0.53 −0.01 0.06 [−0.13, 0.11] 0.87
SMP Black primes 0.16 0.06 [0.03, 0.28] 0.016 0.13 0.06 [0.02, 0.25] 0.019
Symbolic racism 0.43 0.08 [0.28, 0.59] < 0.001
Political ideology 0.15 0.07 [0.01, 0.29] 0.03
Party aff. (1 = Rep.) −0.01 0.14 [−0.28, 0.26] 0.94

Predicting opposition toward welfare

AMP White primes 0.01 0.08 [−0.14, 0.17] 0.87 0.07 0.06 [−0.04, 0.19] 0.20
AMP Black primes 0.12 0.08 [−0.03, 0.27] 0.12 0.02 0.06 [−0.10, 0.13] 0.75
SMP White primes 0.16 0.07 [0.02, 0.31] 0.02 0.09 0.05 [−0.02, 0.19] 0.12
SMP Black primes 0.03 0.07 [−0.11, 0.17] 0.68 0.002 0.05 [−0.10, 0.10] 0.97
Symbolic racism 0.68 0.07 [0.54, 0.83] < 0.001
Political ideology 0.18 0.07 [0.05, 0.31] 0.006
Party aff. (1 = Rep.) 0.20 0.13 [−0.05, 0.44] 0.12

Predicting support for redistribution

AMP White primes −0.08 0.08 [−0.24, 0.08] 0.35 −0.15 0.07 [−0.29, −0.01] 0.03
AMP Black primes −0.13 0.08 [−0.29, 0.04] 0.13 −0.03 0.07 [−0.17, 0.11] 0.68
SMP White primes −0.14 0.08 [−0.30, 0.01] 0.06 −0.07 0.07 [−0.20, 0.06] 0.29
SMP Black primes −0.01 0.08 [−0.16, 0.14] 0.88 0.03 0.06 [−0.10, 0.15] 0.69
Symbolic racism −0.72 0.09 [−0.89, −0.54] < 0.001
Political ideology −0.30 0.08 [−0.46, −0.14] < 0.001
Party aff. (1 = Rep.) −0.14 0.16 [−0.44, 0.17] 0.38

Note: Opposition toward welfare is coded such that higher numbers represent more opposition. Symbolic racism is coded such that higher numbers represent more
symbolic racism. Political ideology is coded such that higher numbers represent more conservative (as opposed to liberal) ideology. Party affiliation was dummy
coded such that 1 = Republican. Party Affiliation is abbreviated Party aff., and Republican is abbreviated Rep. All continuous variables were standardized prior to
entering the model.

In addition, we investigated whether the implicit measures pre- each implicit measure, we entered the AMP and SMP responses toward
dicted: (1) the belief that redistribution policies benefit Blacks over each prime type into the regression model simultaneously. All variables
Whites, (2) attitudes toward welfare policies and the poor, and (3) were standardized prior to entering the model. The proportion of
support for redistribution generally. To measure the unique effect of Black/poor responses uniquely predicted the assumption that

30
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al.
redistribution policies benefit Blacks over Whites, b = 0.16, SE = 0.06,
p = .016. Inconsistent with Study 1, however, Black/poor associations
did not uniquely predict attitudes toward welfare policies, b = 0.03,
SE = 0.07, p = .68, or support for redistribution, b = −0.01,
SE = 0.08, p = .88. Finally, to investigate the robustness of these re-
lations, we controlled for political ideology, party affiliation, and
symbolic racism, variables that are known to predict support for re-
distribution (e.g., Gilens, 1995). Controlling for these variables did not
substantively change the previously presented relations (see Table 4).
Finally, we investigated whether the belief that redistribution po-
licies benefit Blacks over Whites would mediate the association be-
tween implicit poor/Black associations and explicit policy attitudes.
Although there was no direct effect of semantic associations on explicit
policy attitudes, mediation can occur in the absence of a direct effect for
a variety of reasons (e.g., Hayes, 2009; Shrout & Bolger, 2002). For
example, mediation can occur in the absence of a direct effect when the
indirect effect (ab pathway) has a different sign from the direct effect
(c′). To test this predicted pattern, we used the PROCESS macro with
10,000 bootstraps (model 4; Hayes, 2017). We controlled for the pro-
portion of ‘poor’ responses when preceded by White primes, and the
proportion of ‘unpleasant’ responses when preceded by Black and White
primes. In a separate set of analyses, we again controlled for political
ideology, party affiliation, and symbolic racism (see Supplemental
materials). The pattern of the mediation results was consistent with our
hypothesis - the belief that redistribution policies benefit Blacks over
Whites mediated the association between implicit poor/Black associa-
tions and explicit policy attitudes, indirect effect bWelfare attitudes = 0.08,
95% CI: [0.01, 0.16]; indirect effect bredistribution attitudes = −0.07, 95% CI:
[−0.14, −0.01] (see Fig. 2).
7. Discussion
Overall, these results are consistent with our hypotheses.
Participants were more likely to implicitly associate poor with Blacks
(vs. White). And, the extent to which people implicitly associated poor
with Blacks predicted the belief that redistributive policies benefit
Blacks which in turn predicted negative attitudes toward these policies.
Further, these findings controlled for implicit valence associations,
suggesting that implicit race/class semantic associations may be parti-
cularly important when investigating these policy attitudes.
In our final study, we sought to further understand the relation
Fig. 2. Mediations depicting the association between negative attitudes toward welfare policies (top panel) and support for redistribution (bottom panel) and implicit
semantic associations between poor and African American primes, as mediated by the belief that African Americans (vs. White Americans) benefit from redistribution
policies. These results control for the proportion of ‘poor’ responses when preceded by a White American prime, and the proportion of ‘unpleasant’ responses when
preceded by an African American or White American prime. All continuous variables were standardized prior to entering the model.
31
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34
between implicit associations and explicit policy relations by in-
vestigating invalidity metacognitions. If people reject the idea that race
connotes class, then they may no longer believe that redistribution
primarily benefits a specific race. As a result, we would expect the
implicit-explicit correspondence to be mitigated among participants
who think of their implicit associations as invalid.
8. Study 3 method
8.1. Power and participants
Using G⁎Power (Faul et al., 2007), we determined we needed a
minimum sample of 199 to have adequate power (0.80) to detect a
small effect (d = 0.20) in a repeated measure design. In addition, we
needed as sample of at least 185 to have adequate power (0.80) to
detect a small-to-medium effect (f2 = 0.085) in a multiple regression
model. To account for attrition, we aimed to collect at least N = 300.
Participants (N = 332) were undergraduates recruited from the
psychology participant pool. Eight participants pressed one button
during the SMP and five participants reported they could read Chinese
and were excluded. Again, we excluded Black participants. Our final
sample was N = 272 (77 men, 194 women, 1 did not report gender).
Participants self-reported being White (249), Hispanic (12), Asian (10),
and one participant did not report race/ethnicity. Participants identi-
fied being Republican (128), Democrat (78), independent (43), or
“other” (22), and one participant did not report political affiliation.
8.2. Procedure
First, participants completed the SMP (α = 0.89). Then, participants
were randomly assigned to the validation (coded 1) or invalidation
condition (coded 0). We created this manipulation based on previous
research (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006), but we made the manip-
ulation specific to the current metacognitive inferences. Participants
were told: “while completing the picture task, you may have had a ‘gut
association’ between the pictures of Black and White individuals and
the concepts of rich and poor. Research has found that this gut asso-
ciation usually does [NOT] accurately reflect people's genuine attitudes.
For the purpose of this study, we'd like you to write 2–3 reasons why
the associations you made between Black and White individuals and the
concepts of rich and poor during the picture task are [NOT] accurate
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34

reflections of your attitudes.” Preacher, Curran, & Bauer, 2006). The simple slope relating the pro-
After the metacognition task, participants were asked about their portion of ‘poor’ responses toward Black primes and opposition toward
support for welfare policies (α = 0.89, M = 3.28, SD = 1.09) and re- welfare policies was significant in the valid condition, b = −0.21,
distributive policies (α = 0.89, M = 3.77, SD = 0.99) as in Study 2. We SE = 0.08, p = .006. This means that the extent to which participants
also measured Symbolic Racism (α = 0.63, M = 0.06, SD = 0.52; implicitly associated Black/poor predicted less support for redistribu-
Henry & Sears, 2002), party affiliation, and political ideology tion. Critically, this association dropped to non-significance in the in-
(M = 3.10, SD = 1.04). We measured demographic information in- valid condition, b = −0.06, SE = 0.06, p = .37. And the same basic
cluding whether participants could read Chinese. For exploratory pur- pattern emerged when decomposing the interaction predicting support
poses, we also included feeling thermometers toward Black, White, for redistribution policies. The extent to which participants implicitly
Asian and Hispanic people (0 = very cold/unfavorable; 100 = very associated Black/poor predicted less support for redistributive policies
warm/favorable), and internal and external motivations to respond in the valid condition, b = −0.26, SE = 0.08, p = .001. However, this
without prejudice (Plant & Devine, 1998). association dropped to non-significance in the invalid condition,
b = −0.02, SE = 0.06, p = .73. Finally, we examined whether in-
validity metacognitions dampened implicit-explicit correspondence by
9. Results
leading people to question whether race connotes social class. To test
this, a research assistant, blind to the hypothesis, coded whether or not
First, we investigated whether participants would be more likely to
participants' open-ended responses explicitly rejected the idea that race
associate poor with Black (vs. White) primes. Replicating the previous
connotes class (1 = rejected). As intended, participants in the invalid
studies, participants were significantly more likely to think the Chinese
condition were significantly more likely to explicitly reject the race/
ideographs meant ‘poor’ when preceded by Black primes (M = 0.61,
class relation than participants in the valid condition, χ2(1) = 18.79,
SD = 0.26, 95% CI: [0.57, 0.64]) than when preceded by White primes
p < .001. It is important to note that the manipulation did not lead to a
(M = 0.50, SD = 0.24, 95% CI: [0.47, 0.53]), F(1, 271) = 36.78,
main effect policy attitudes, tWelfare(270) = −0.31, p = .76;
p < .001, ηp2 = 0.12.
tRedistribution(270) = −0.73, p = .46. However, we did not expect this
Next, we investigated whether the metacognition condition mod-
main effect as the manipulation sought to moderate the implicit-explicit
erated the implicit-explicit association. We hypothesized that partici-
association.
pants in the invalidate (vs. validate) condition would have a reduced
association between implicit semantic associations and explicit policy
attitudes. We investigated these hypotheses by running two regressions
10. Discussion
where the dependent variable was regressed onto the proportion of
‘poor’ responses toward each prime type (Black and White), condition,
In Study 3, participants in the invalidity condition were more likely
and the interaction between condition and each prime type. All con-
to reject the idea that race connotes social class than participants in the
tinuous variables were standardized prior to entering the model.
validity condition. In addition, after controlling for explicit prejudice
Condition was dummy coded (valid condition = 1). Counter to our
and political ideology, variables known to be associated with redis-
hypothesis, there was not a significant interaction between condition
tributive policy preferences, there was no relation between implicit
and responses preceded by Black primes (see Table 5). However, when
race/class associations and explicit policy preferences when partici-
political ideology, party affiliation, and symbolic racism, variables that
pants were in the invalidity (vs. validity) condition. Together, this
are known to predict redistributive policy attitudes (e.g., Carmines &
suggests the metacognitions moderate the implicit-explicit correspon-
Stimson, 1989; Gilens, 1995), were added to the model the Condition
dence.
by Black primes interaction emerged (see Table 5).
To further probe these interactions, separate regression lines were
estimated for participants in the valid and invalid condition (see Fig. 3;

Table 5
Study 3 regression coefficients and associated standard errors, 95% confidence intervals, and significance levels when dependent variables of interest.
b SE 95% CI p-Value b SE 95% CI p-Value

Predicting opposition toward welfare

Condition (1 = valid) 0.03 0.12 [−0.20, 0.27] 0.79 0.06 0.09 [−0.13, 0.24] 0.54
SMP White primes −0.01 0.09 [−0.18, 0.17] 0.96 0.04 0.07 [−0.09, 0.18] 0.52
SMP Black primes 0.13 0.09 [−0.04, 0.31] 0.14 −0.06 0.07 [−0.19, 0.08] 0.40
Condition × White primes −0.19 0.13 [−0.45, 0.07] 0.16 −0.15 0.10 [−0.35, 0.05] 0.14
Condition × Black primes 0.14 0.13 [−0.12, 0.40] 0.29 0.28 0.10 [0.08, 0.48] 0.007
Symbolic racism 0.95 0.11 [0.74, 1.16] < 0.001
Political ideology 0.21 0.07 [0.08, 0.34] 0.002
Party aff. (1 = Rep.) 0.10 0.13 [−0.16, 0.36] 0.45

Predicting support for redistribution

Condition (1 = Valid) 0.09 0.12 [−0.14, 0.32] 0.45 0.003 0.09 [−0.17, 0.18] 0.98
SMP White primes −0.002 0.09 [−0.18, 0.17] 0.98 −0.06 0.07 [−0.19, 0.07] 0.35
SMP Black primes −0.21 0.09 [−0.38, −0.04] 0.016 −0.02 0.07 [−0.15, 0.11] 0.74
Condition × White primes 0.12 0.13 [−0.14, 0.37] 0.36 0.11 0.10 [−0.08, 0.30] 0.27
Condition × Black primes −0.12 0.13 [−0.37, 0.14] 0.37 −0.23 0.10 [−0.43, −0.04] 0.018
Symbolic racism −0.58 0.10 [−0.79, −0.38] < 0.001
Political ideology −0.29 0.07 [−0.41, −0.16] < 0.001
Party aff. (1 = Rep.) −0.41 0.13 [−0.66, −0.16] 0.002

Note: Condition was dummy coded such that invalid condition was coded 0 and valid condition was coded 1. Support for redistribution is coded such that higher
numbers represent more support. Opposition toward welfare is coded such that higher numbers represent more opposition. Symbolic racism is coded such that higher
numbers represent more symbolic racism. Political ideology is coded such that higher numbers represent more conservative (as opposed to liberal) ideology. Party
affiliation was dummy coded such that 1 = Republican. Party Affiliation is abbreviated Party aff., and Republican is abbreviated Rep. All continuous variables were
standardized prior to entering the model.

32
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al.
Fig. 3. The graph on the left displays the interaction between implicit semantic associations when preceded by African American primes and condition when
predicting opposition toward welfare policies. Higher numbers on the y-axis indicates more opposition toward welfare policies. The graph on the right displays the
interaction between implicit semantic associations when preceded by African American primes and condition when predicting support for redistributive policies.
Higher numbers on the y-axis indicates more support for redistributive policies. Condition was dummy coded such that 0 = invalid and 1 = valid. All continuous
variables were standardized prior to entering the model.
11. General discussion
Across three studies we found that, on average, participants were
more likely to associate poor with Blacks (vs. Whites). Additionally, we
found that the extent to which participants associated Black with poor
predicted opposition toward welfare and redistributive policies, an ef-
fect that was mediated by the belief that redistributive policies bene-
fited Blacks over Whites. Finally, when participants were randomly
assigned to invalidate their implicit race/class associations, there was
no longer an association between implicit race/class associations and
explicit policy preferences.
Across the three studies, the results revealed an inconsistent asso-
ciation between implicit Black-poor associations and explicit policy
support. To investigate the average correlation across studies, we con-
ducted mini-meta analyses using a few different approaches (see
Supplemental materials; Goh, Hall, & Rosenthal, 2016). Overall, we
found a small yet significant correlation suggesting that more Black-
poor implicit associations were associated with more negative attitudes
toward welfare and redistribution, average r's ≥ 0.15, p's ≤ 0.05. These
findings suggest that there is an overall correlation between the Black-
poor association and negative attitudes toward redistribution or welfare
policies.
These findings can be understood in the context of implicit pre-
judice and implicit stereotypes. Previous research suggests that al-
though implicit stereotypes (e.g., implicit semantic associations) may
be related to implicit prejudice (e.g., implicit affective associations),
they may also be independent of one another (e.g., Amodio & Devine,
2006; Amodio & Frith, 2006; Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999).
Further, implicit stereotypes and prejudice may have unique effects on
explicit attitudes and behaviors (Amodio & Devine, 2006). The current
research suggests that both implicit stereotypes and implicit prejudice
are associated with policy attitudes toward redistribution. In addition, a
similar pattern of effects emerges when we investigate the relation
between implicit prejudice and policy attitudes controlling for implicit
stereotypes (see Supplemental analyses). Together, this suggests that
both implicit prejudice and implicit stereotypes uniquely predict ex-
plicit policy attitudes toward redistribution, and thus it may be fruitful
to consider both when predicting explicit attitudes and behaviors (e.g.,
Amodio & Devine, 2006).
33
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34
11.1. Limitations and future directions
The current research is not without limitations. For example, there
may be situations where implicit race/class attitudes predict positivity
toward wealth redistribution policies. In particular, Black participants,
or those with positive attitudes toward Blacks, may interpret implicit
poor/Black associations as reflective of structural discrimination. In this
case, Black/poor associations might result in positive (rather than ne-
gative) attitudes toward redistribution. Future research should in-
vestigate this possibility.
12. Conclusion
The current research represents an important first step toward un-
derstanding implicit race/class associations. We found that people tend
to implicitly associate Blacks with the concept of being poor, as opposed
to rich. In addition, these implicit semantic associations predicted op-
position toward redistributive policies. Overall, these findings suggest
that automatic beliefs about wealthy Whites and poor Blacks may affect
wealth redistribution policy attitudes.
Appendix A. Supplementary data
Supplementary data to this article can be found online at https://
doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2018.11.006.
References
Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias:
evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of
Personality and Social Psychology, 91(4), 652.
Amodio, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Meeting of minds: The medial frontal cortex and
social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, 7(4), 268–277.
Andreychik, M., & Gill, M. J. (2012). Do negative implicit associations indicate negative
attitudes? Social explanations moderate whether ostensible “negative” associations
are prejudice-based or empathy-based. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,
48(5), 1082–1093. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2012.05.006.
Ashok, V., Kuziemko, I., & Washington, E. (2015). Support for redistribution in an age of
rising inequality: New stylized facts and some tentative explanations. Brookings
Papers on Economic Activity, 367–405.
Bergsieker, H. B., Leslie, L. M., Constantine, V. S., & Fiske, S. T. (2012). Stereotyping by
omission: Eliminate the negative, accentuate the positive. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 102(6), 1214–1238. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0027717.
Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Dotsch, R., Cooley, E., & Payne, B. K. (2017). The relationship
between mental representations of welfare recipients and attitudes toward welfare
J.L. Brown-Iannuzzi et al.
policies. Psychological Science, 28(1), 92–103. https://doi.org/10.1177/
0956797616674999.
Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., Lundberg, K. B., Kay, A. C., & Payne, B. K. (2015). Subjective status
shapes political preferences. Psychological Science, 26(1), 15–26. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0956797614553947.
Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system has parallel
and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of personality
and Social Psychology, 76(5), 839–855.
Cameron, C., Brown-Iannuzzi, J. L., & Payne, B. (2012). Sequential priming measures of
implicit social cognition: A meta-analysis of associations with behavior and explicit
attitudes. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 16(4), 330–350. https://doi.org/
10.1177/1088868312440047.
Carmines, E. G., & Stimson, J. A. (1989). Issue Evolution. Princeton, NJ: Princeton
University Press.
Cooley, E., Payne, B. K., Loersch, C., & Lei, R. (2015). Who owns implicit attitudes?
Testing a metacognitive perspective. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41(1),
103–115. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167214559712.
Cooley, E., Payne, B. K., & Phillips, J. K. (2014). Implicit bias and the illusion of conscious
ill will. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 5(4), 500–507. https://doi.org/10.
1177/1948550613506123.
Cox, W. T. L., & Devine, P. G. (2015). Stereotypes possess heterogeneous directionality: A
theoretical and empirical exploration of stereotype structure and content. PLoS ONE,
10(3), e0122292. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0122292.
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and explicit prejudice and
interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(1), 62–68.
https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.82.1.62.
Faul, F., Erdfelder, E., Lang, A. G., & Buchner, A. (2007). G⁎Power 3: A flexible statistical
power analysis program for the social, behavioral, and biomedical sciences. Behavior
Research Methods, 39(2), 175–191. https://doi.org/10.3758/BF03193146.
Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition research: Their
meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54(1), 297–327. https://doi.org/10.
1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225.
Freeman, J. B., Penner, A. M., Saperstein, A., Scheutz, M., & Ambady, N. (2011). Looking
the part: Social status cues shape race perception. PLoS ONE, 6(9), e25107. https://
doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0025107.
Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in
evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change.
Psychological Bulletin, 132(5), 692–731. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.132.5.
692.
Gawronski, B., & Ye, Y. (2014). What drives priming effects in the affect misattribution
procedure? Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 40(1), 3–15. https://doi.org/10.
1177/0146167213502548.
Gilens, M. (1995). Racial attitudes and opposition to welfare. Journal of Politics, 57(4),
994–1014. https://doi.org/10.2307/2960399.
Gilens, M. (1996). “Race coding” and White opposition to welfare. American Political
Science Review, 90(3), 593–604. https://doi.org/10.2307/2082611.
Goh, J. X., Hall, J. A., & Rosenthal, R. (2016). Mini meta-analysis of your own studies:
Some arguments on why and a primer on how. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 10(10), 535–549.
Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding
and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity.
Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97(1), 17–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/
a0015575.
Gregg, A. P., Seibt, B., & Banaji, M. R. (2006). Easier done than undone: Asymmetry in the
malleability of implicit preferences. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,
90(1), 1–20. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.1.
Hayes, A. F. (2009). Beyond Baron and Kenny: Statistical mediation analysis in the new
millennium. Communication Monographs, 76(4), 408–420. https://doi.org/10.1080/
03637750903310360.
Hayes, A. F. (2017). Introduction to mediation, moderations, and conditional process analysis:
A regression-based approach. New York: The Guilford Press.
Henry, P. J., & Sears, D. O. (2002). The symbolic racism 2000 scale. Political Psychology,
23(2), 253–283. https://doi.org/10.1111/0162-895X.00281.
Imhoff, R., Schmidt, A. F., Bernhardt, J., Dierksmeier, A., & Banse, R. (2011). An inkblot
for sexual preference: A semantic variant of the Affect Misattribution Procedure.
Cognition and Emotion, 25(4), 676–690. https://doi.org/10.1080/02699931.2010.
508260.
Iyengar, S. (1990). Framing responsibility for political issues: The case of poverty. Political
Behavior, 12(1), 19–40. https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00992330.
Kluegel, J. R., & Smith, E. R. (1986). Beliefs about inequality: Americans' views of what is and
what ought to be. New York, NY: Aline De Grader.
Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (2008). International affective picture
system (IAPS): Affective ratings of pictures and instruction manual. Technical report
34
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 82 (2019) 26–34
A-8. University of Florida. Gainesville: FL.
Lee, K., Lindquist, K. A., & Payne, B. K. (2018). Constructing bias: Conceptualization
breaks the link between implicit bias and fear of Black Americans. Emotion, 18(6),
855–871. https://doi.org/10.1037/emo0000347.
Lei, R. F., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2017). Racial assumptions color the mental re-
presentation of social class. Frontiers in Psychology, 8. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyg.
2017.00519.
McCall, L., & Kenworthy, L. (2009). Americans' social policy preferences in the era of
rising inequality. Perspectives on Politics, 7(3), 459–484. https://doi.org/10.1017/
S1537592709990818.
Mitchell, C. J., De Houwer, J., & Lovibond, P. F. (2009). The propositional nature of
human associative learning. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 32(2), 183–190. https://
doi.org/10.1017/S0140525X09000855.
Norton, M. I., & Ariely, D. (2011). Building a better America—One wealth quintile at a
time. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 6(1), 9–12.
Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship between implicit and explicit eva-
luation. Journal of Experimental Psychology. General, 134(4), 565–584. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0096-3445.134.4.565.
Payne, K., & Lundberg, K. (2014). The affect misattribution procedure: Ten years of
evidence on reliability, validity, and mechanisms. Social and Personality Psychology
Compass, 8(12), 672–686.
Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005). An inkblot for attitudes:
Affect misattribution as implicit measurement. Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, 89(3), 277–293. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.89.3.277.
Payne, B. K., Vuletich, H. A., & Lundberg, K. B. (2017). The bias of crowds: How implicit
bias bridges personal and systemic prejudice. Psychological Inquiry, 28(4), 233–248.
https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568.
Petty, R. E., Briñol, P., & DeMaree, K. G. (2007). The meta-cognitive model (MCM) of
attitudes: Implications for attitude measurement, change, and strength. Social
Cognition, 25(5), 1–15. https://doi.org/10.1521/soco.2007.25.5.657.
Petty, R. E., Tormala, Z. L., Briñol, P., & Jarvis, W. B. G. (2006). Implicit ambivalence
from attitude change: An exploration of the PAST model. Journal of Personality and
Social Psychology, 90(1), 21–41. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.1.21.
Pew Research Center Social & Demographic Trends (2016). On views of race and in-
equality, Blacks and Whites are worlds apart. Retrieved from http://www.
pewsocialtrends.org/2016/06/27/on-views-of-race-and-inequality-blacks-and-
whites-are-worlds-apart/.
Plant, E. A., & Devine, P. G. (1998). Internal and external motivation to respond without
prejudice. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75(3), 811–832. https://doi.
org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811.
Preacher, K. J., Curran, P. J., & Bauer, D. J. (2006). Computational tools for probing
interaction effects in multiple linear regression, multilevel modeling, and latent curve
analysis. Journal of Educational and Behavioral Statistics, 31(4), 437–448. https://doi.
org/10.3102/10769986031004437.
Quillian, L., Pager, D., Hexel, O., & Midtboen, A. H. (2017). Meta-analysis of field ex-
periments shows no change in racial discrimination in hiring over time. Proceedings of
the National Academy of Sciences, 114(41), 10870–10875. https://doi.org/10.1073/
pnas.1706255114.
Saez, E., & Zucman, E. (2014). Wealth inequality in the United States since 1913:
Evidence from capitalized income tax data. Working Paper No. 20625. Retrieved
from http://www.nber.org/papers/w20625.
Sava, F. A., Maricuτoiu, L. P., Rusu, S., Macsinga, I., Vîrgă, D., Cheng, C. M., & Payne, B.
K. (2012). An inkblot for the implicit assessment of personality: The semantic mis-
attribution procedure. European Journal of Personality, 26(6), 613–628. https://doi.
org/10.1002/per.1861.
Sears, D. O., & Cirin, J. (1985). Tax revolt: Something for nothing in California. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Shrout, P. E., & Bolger, N. (2002). Mediation in experimental and nonexperimental stu-
dies: New procedures and recommendations. Psychological Methods, 7(4), 422–445.
https://doi.org/10.1037/1082-989X.7.4.422.
Uhlmann, E. L., Brescoll, V. L., & Paluck, E. L. (2006). Are members of low status groups
perceived as bad, or badly off? Egalitarian negative associations and automatic
prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42(4), 491–499. https://doi.org/
10.1016/j.jesp.2004.10.003.
Wetts, R., & Willer, R. (2018). Privilege on the precipice: Perceived racial status threats
lead White Americans to oppose welfare programs. Social Forces. https://doi.org/10.
1093/sf/soy046.
Wolff, E. N. (2002). Top heavy: The increasing inequality of wealth in America and what can
be done about it. New York, NY: New Press.
Ye, Y., & Gawronski, B. (2018). Validating the semantic misattribution procedure as an
implicit measure of gender stereotyping. European Journal of Social Psychology, 48(3),
348–364. https://doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.2337.