Detailed Study Notes on Implicit Attitudes towards Body Weight

Introduction to Implicit Attitudes

  • The study examines implicit attitudes towards body weight, specifically pro-slim and anti-fat biases.
  • Authors: Sarah Roddy & Ian Stewart (National University of Ireland, Galway) and Dermot Barnes-Holmes (National University of Ireland, Maynooth).
  • Abstract Overview:
      - Two implicit measures were compared: Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP) and Implicit Association Test (IAT), alongside an explicit attitude measure.
      - Key findings indicated higher levels of implicit bias than explicit measurements.
      - The results suggested that pro-slim attitudes were stronger drivers behind the bias than anti-fat attitudes.
      - Explicit attitudes significantly predicted behavioural intentions towards overweight individuals.
      - IRAP showed higher predictive validity compared to IAT.

Keywords

  • Anti-fat bias - Prejudice against overweight individuals.
  • IAT - A test measuring implicit bias by assessing response times.
  • Implicit attitudes - Unconscious evaluations or associations concerning people or objects.
  • IRAP - A newer measure of implicit attitudes where participants respond to various relational stimuli.
  • Pictures - Visual stimuli used to assess attitudes towards body weight.

Background on Implicit Measures

  • Usage in Research:
      - Increasing use of implicit measures in examining social biases, including anti-fat bias, with studies illustrating robust associations via the IAT.
      - IAT Overview: Developed by Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz (1998).
  • Key Findings: Faster response latencies observed for pairing 'slim' imagery with positive descriptors versus 'fat' imagery with negative attributes.
  • Replication of the IAT effect across various studies suggests strong implicit biases against fat individuals.

Limitations of the IAT

  • Criticisms:
      - The IAT provides relative measures, meaning that it cannot discern between neutral and negative biases for specific categories (e.g., fat vs. slim).
      - Previous studies have explored non-relative assessments (Bessenoff & Sherman, 2000).

Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure (IRAP)

  • Introduction:
      - The IRAP is a more comprehensive measure that assesses direct implicit attitudes using multiple stimulus relations.
      - Participants choose between consistent or inconsistent response patterns.
  • Task Structure:
      - Involves presenting positive or negative words alongside images of overweight or slim individuals.
      - Response patterns categorized as pro-slim/anti-fat or pro-fat/anti-slim.
  • Measurement of Latency:
      - Response latencies for various trial types are used to derive significant bias scores.

Methodology

Participants

  • Sample of 80 participants (58 females, 22 males), aged 18-40 (M = 21.1, SD = 3.4). Undergraduates and postgraduates from Psychology programs in the Republic of Ireland.

Materials and Stimuli

Implicit Measures
  • IAT Stimuli: 12 images (6 male, 6 female; 6 fat, 6 average weight) alongside 12 positive and 12 negative adjectives.
  • IRAP Stimuli: Same images as IAT; participants judged stimuli based on relational adjectives 'Good' and 'Bad'.
Explicit Measures
  1. General Information Questionnaire (GIQ): 26 items assessing participant information and feelings towards body weight, rated on a scale from 1 (very warm) to 5 (very cold).
  2. Explicit Anti-Fat Attitude Scale (AFA): 13 items measuring three dimensions (1. dislike of fat people, 2. personal fear of fat, 3. belief in fat people's willpower).
       - Validity: Cronbach’s alpha scores reported (.67 to .80).
  3. Behavioural Intention Questionnaire (BIQ): Assessed likelihood of interactions with overweight vs. average individuals, each rated on a 7-point scale.

Procedure

  • Ethics: Approval from Research Ethics Committee.
  • Phase 1: Conducted implicit measures (IAT followed by IRAP or vice versa).
  • Phase 2: Completion of explicit measures after the implicit tests.

Results

Analysis Summary

  • IAT: Primary measure was response latency, calculated using D-scores.
       - Mean D-IAT score: 0.68 (significant bias observed).
  • IRAP: D-IRAP scores calculated similarly, indicating pro-slim bias without significant anti-fat findings.
       - Overall D-IRAP score: 0.14, indicating pro-slim rather than anti-fat bias.
  • Explicit Measures: AFA results and GIQ showed lower levels of explicit bias compared to implicit measures.
Predictive Validity
  • Both the IRAP and IAT were compared for their ability to predict behavioural intentions based on explicit attitudes.
       - Explicit dislike was a significant predictor of behavioural intentions compared to both implicit measures.
       - IRAP showed stronger predictive capacity than IAT for behavioural intentions.

Discussion

  • Findings indicate a dual pattern: pro-slim attitudes where explicit attitudes were low and implicit measures indicated considerable bias.
  • IRAP's effectiveness highlights the distinction between implicit and explicit measures, suggesting a nuanced understanding of anti-fat bias.

References

  • Comprehensive list of references cited throughout the research, including notable works concerning implicit cognition and biases in social psychology.

Author Biographies

  • Sarah Roddy: PhD candidate at the School of Psychology, expert in implicit cognition.
  • Ian Stewart: Full-time academic focusing on language and cognition.
  • Dermot Barnes-Holmes: Foundation Professor with extensive publications in behavioral psychology.