10.1177/0146167204264654 PERSONALITY AND SOCIAL PSYCHOLOGY BULLETIN Cunningham et al. / ETHNOCENTRISM Implicit and Explicit Ethnocentrism: Revisiting the Ideologies of Prejudice William A. Cunningham Yale University John B. Nezlek College of William & Mary Mahzarin R. Banaji Harvard University Two studies investigated relationships among individual differ- ences in implicit and explicit prejudice, right-wing ideology, and rigidity in thinking. The first study examined these relation- ships focusing on White Americans’ prejudice toward Black Americans. The second study provided the first test of implicit ethnocentrism and its relationship to explicit ethnocentrism by studying the relationship between attitudes toward five social groups. Factor analyses found support for both implicit and explicit ethnocentrism. In both studies, mean explicit attitudes toward outgroups were positive, whereas implicit attitudes were negative, suggesting that implicit and explicit prejudices are dis- tinct; however, in both studies, implicit and explicit attitudes were related (r = .37, .47). Latent variable modeling indicates a simple structure within this ethnocentric system, with variables organized in order of specificity. These results lead to the conclu- sion that (a) implicit ethnocentrism exists and (b) it is related to and distinct from explicit ethnocentrism. Keywords: ethnocentrism; ideology; prejudice; implicit attitudes; explicit attitudes . . . but the basic fact is firmly established—prejudice is more than an incident in many lives; it is often lockstitched into the very fabric of personality .... To change it, the whole pattern of life would have to be altered. —Gordon Allport, The Nature of Prejudice (1954, p. 408) Emphatically stated in the writings of Gordon Allport and Henri Tajfel, the modern approach to the study of prejudice and stereotyping radically altered our under- standing of the psychological roots of prejudice, ethnocentrism, and intergroup conflict. A central fea- ture of this modern view is the notion that constructs such as stereotype and prejudice are ordinary—that they are firmly grounded in the ways in which humans com- monly perceive, categorize, learn, and remember. This simple observation has guided theory and research on how humans evaluate other humans as members of socially defined categories and in recent years has been accompanied by an interest in the implicit expression of prejudice. As useful as such an approach has been, the emphasis on single acts of thinking and feeling, conscious and unconscious, has left unexamined critical aspects of the structure and function of this cognitive-affective system. It has, for example, tended to ignore the broader net- work of ideology that represents one’s political and social view of the world and the place of social groups in it. In this research, we integrate what is known about the social cognition of prejudice—specifically that prejudice operates in both explicit (conscious) and implicit 1332 Authors’ Note: Portions of this research were presented at the 1998 meeting of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology, Lexington, KY. This research was supported by National Institute of Mental Health Grant MH-75672 and National Science Foundation Grant SBR- 9709924 to Mahzarin R. Banaji. Study 1 is based on William A. Cunningham’s College of William & Mary master’s thesis supervised by John B. Nezlek, and we thank the additional members of the commit- tee for their thoughtful suggestions: Peter Derks and Kelly Shaver. For helpful comments on earlier versions of this article, we thank Brian Nosek, Kris Preacher, Siri Carpenter, Kristi Lemm, Kathleen Brophy, Aiden Gregg, Tony Greenwald, Greg Walton, Eric Uhlmann, and Robert C. MacCallum. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to William A. Cunningham, Department of Psychology, University of Toronto, 100 St. George Street, Toronto, ON, M5S3G3; e-mail: cunningham@psych.utoronto.ca. PSPB, Vol. 30 No. 10, October 2004 1332-1346 DOI: 10.1177/0146167204264654 © 2004 by the Society for Personality and Social Psychology, Inc.