Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-gb8f7 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-24T11:14:46.826Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Racial Priming: Issues in Research Design and Interpretation

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  26 February 2008

Tali Mendelberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Abstract

In a critique of Huber and Lapinski (in this volume) I argued that their 2006 study failed to find evidence of racial priming and that this failure stands out in the recent accumulation of studies that do find racial priming. I argued further that this failure to replicate is the result of deficiencies in Huber and Lapinski's research. Huber and Lapinski (in this volume) respond by claiming that they did find evidence of racial priming among a subgroup, that their research is sound, that my research is flawed, and that the relevant literature does not comment on the differences between implicit and explicit messages . I show that 1) Huber and Lapinski's results demonstrate that their study produced null findings, 2) these null findings are caused by flaws in their study, 3) my research withstands their criticism, and 4) the relevant literature is in fact relevant and highlights the extent to which their null results are anomalous. There are, however, several points of agreement: 1) racial predispositions shape policy views, 2) these predispositions can be primed by cues and messages, and 3) these predispositions are primed by implicit racial messages. What remains at issue is the impact of explicit racial messages.

Type
EXCHANGE
Information
Perspectives on Politics , Volume 6 , Issue 1 , March 2008 , pp. 135 - 140
Copyright
© 2008 American Political Science Association

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

Gilens, Martin. 1999. Why Americans Hate Welfare. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
Gilliam, Frank D., and Shanto Iyengar. 2000. Prime suspects: The influence of local television news on the viewing public. American Journal of Political Science 44 (3): 560–73.Google Scholar
Greenwald, Anthony G., and Linda Krieger. 2006. Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. Symposium on Behavioral Realism. California Law Review 94 (4): 945–67.Google Scholar
Huber, Gregory A., and John Lapinski. 2006. The “race card” revisited: Assessing racial priming in policy contests. American Journal of Political Science 48 (2): 375–401.Google Scholar
Hurwitz, Jon, and Mark Peffley. 2005. Playing the race card in the post-Willie Horton era. Public Opinion Quarterly 69 (1): 99–112.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 1997. Executing Hortons: Racial crime in the 1988 presidential campaign. Public Opinion Quarterly 61(1): 134–57.Google Scholar
Mendelberg, Tali. 2001. The Race Card: Campaign Strategy, Implicit Messages, and the Norm of Equality. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
Terkildsen, Nayda. 1993. When white voters evaluate black candidates: The processing implications of candidate skin color, prejudice and self-monitoring. American Journal of Political Science 37: 1032–53.Google Scholar
White, Ismail. 2007. When race matters and when it doesn't: Racial group differences in response to racial cues. American Political Science Review 101 (2): 1–16.Google Scholar