Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 2005, 46, 361–366 © 2005 The Scandinavian Psychological Associations/Blackwell Publishing Ltd. Published by Blackwell Publishing Ltd., 9600 Garsington Road, Oxford OX4 2DQ, UK and 350 Main Street, Malden, MA 02148, USA. ISSN 0036-5564. Blackwell Publishing, Ltd. Personality and Social Sciences The association between implicit and explicit prejudice: the moderating role of motivation to control prejudiced reactions NAZAR AKRAMI and BO EKEHAMMAR Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Uppsala, Sweden Akrami, N. & Ekehammar, B. (2005). The association between implicit and explicit prejudice: the moderating role of motivation to control prejudiced reactions. Scandinavian Journal of Psychology, 46, 361–366. The main aim of the present research was to assess the relationship between implicit and explicit ethnic attitude measures and to examine the impact of motivation to control prejudiced reactions on this relation. Implicit ethnic prejudice was assessed by a response latency measure, and a self-report modern prejudice scale was used to assess explicit prejudice. The results showed that an association between implicit and explicit attitudes was observed only when the explicit attitude measure was corrected for motivational bias. The findings are discussed in relation to previous research reporting either association or dissociation between implicit and explicit attitude measures. Key words: Implicit prejudice, explicit prejudice, prejudice control. Nazar Akrami, Department of Psychology, Uppsala University, Box 1225, SE-751 42 Uppsala, Sweden. Tel: +46 18 471 15 25; fax: +46 18 471 21 23; e-mail: Nazar.Akrami@psyk.uu.se INTRODUCTION Explicit and implicit ethnic attitudes Greenwald and Banaji (1995) have emphasized the importance of the distinction between explicit and implicit measures of attitudes. Explicit attitudes are slow and intentional and operate in a conscious mode. They can be measured by tra- ditional self-report questionnaires. Implicit attitudes, in con- trast, are fast and automatic and operate without intention, often in an unconscious mode. They are assessed using indirect measures, like response latency. Important in the present context is the relationship between implicit and explicit attitudes. Implicit and explicit attitudes can be expected to be associated because of their common root in people’s personal and cultural experiences and socialization history (e.g., Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson & Howard, 1997) or because implicit attitudes are in fact internalized explicit attitudes (e.g., Brauer, Wasel & Niedenthal, 2000). However, Devine (1989) argued that because stereotypes, unlike personal beliefs, are culturally shared, they can be automatically activated. Thus, a person might hold a positive attitude toward a social group and at the same time automatically activate negative stereotypes on the mere presence of a stereotyped group member. Consequently, implicit measures (like response latencies) and explicit measures (like scores on self-report scales) of ethnic prejudice might be dissociated. Given this state of affairs, to what extent are implicit attitudes reflected in explicit attitude measures? This issue is addressed in the present paper. Since the 1970s, social psychologists have questioned the traditional paper-and-pencil questionnaires’ ability to accurately reflect prejudicial attitudes that people may harbor against minority groups (e.g., McConahay, Hardee & Batts, 1981). This suspicion was motivated because of the reactivity biases due to, for example, social desirability. Crosby, Bromley, and Saxe (1980), for example, concluded that “anti-Black senti- ments are much more prevalent among White Americans than the survey data lead one to expect” (p. 546). Further, it has been argued that the prevailing sociopolitical climate (Katz & Hass, 1988) and people’s tendency to present them- selves as non-prejudiced and socially or politically “correct” may prevent the expression of racial/ethnic prejudice openly (Crosby et al. , 1980; see also Akrami, Ekehammar & Araya, 2000; Franco & Maass, 1999; Pettigrew & Meertens, 1995). Consequently, two types of scales measuring racial/ ethnic prejudice have been suggested; one (old-fashioned) tapping direct or open, and another (modern) tapping covert or subtle racial/ethnic prejudice (e.g., McConahay 1986). One example is the old-fashioned and the modern racism (the Modern Racism Scale) measures suggested by McConahay (1986). More recently, however, some researchers have suggested that, like traditional (i.e., old-fashioned) self-report measures, the modern measures might be equally reactive and susceptible to social desirability and self- presentational concerns (cf. Brauer, Wasel & Niedenthal, 2000; Dovidio et al ., 1997; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton & Williams, 1995). Important in the present context is the study of Fazio et al. (1995) where a dissociation was found between a measure of explicit prejudice (the Modern Racism Scale) and a measure of implicit prejudice based on response latency. However, Fazio and his colleagues found an interaction between the