A Literature Review of New Direction in Implicit and Explicit Stereotypes Researches
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.54097/g74h1z57Keywords:
Stereotypes, attitudes, PI: International, word embedding, LLMs.Abstract
Implicit stereotypes are first noticed in the 1980s, nearly half century later then explicit ones. Since then, an array of indirect methods such as Implicit Association Test (IAT) and Attention Misattribution Procedure (AMP) were invented to further analyze this subtle subject. Recently, with the development of Internet and AI, researchers have generally combined these emerging techniques with conventional study on explicit and implicit stereotypes. The current review mainly introduces three new direction of stereotype study and analyzes a basket of representative and comprehensive researches, as examples, to propose the main strengths and weaknesses of these techniques. First, stereotype tests via Internet have strengths of large samples, improved accuracy, and raising public awareness, but they suffered from non-random recruitment and unstable judgment. Second, applying word embedding to stereotype study has strengths of improved efficiency and comprehensiveness, as well as tracing back history, but it suffered from limitation as book texts and limited samples. Third, utilizing Large Language Models (LLMs) to stereotype study is yet a new direction with little published researches, but the current review cautions that the divergence between human thoughts and LLMs’ outputs may matter. In conclusion, the current review postulated that these three directions have a promising future and can deeply inspire further study.
Downloads
References
[1] Greenwald, A. G. (1990). What cognitive representations underlie social attitudes? Bulletin of the Psychonomic Society, 28 (3), 254–260. https://doi.org/10.3758/bf03334018.
[2] McGarty, C., Yzerbyt, V. Y., & Spears, R. (Eds.). (2002). Stereotypes as explanations: The formation of meaningful beliefs about social groups. Cambridge University Press. https://doi.org/10.1017/CBO9780511489877.
[3] Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74 (6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464.
[4] Payne, B. K., Cheng, C. M., Govorun, O., & Stewart, B. D. (2005b). 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.
[5] Ratliff, K. A., & Smith, C. T. (2021). Lessons from two decades of Project Implicit. In Krosnick, J. A., Stark, T. H., & Scott, A. L. (Eds.). The Cambridge handbook of implicit bias and racism. Cambridge, England: Cambridge University Press.
[6] Charlesworth, T. E. S., Navon, M., Rabinovich, Y., Lofaro, N., & Kurdi, B. (2023). The project implicit international dataset: Measuring implicit and explicit social group attitudes and stereotypes across 34 countries (2009-2019). Behavior research methods, 55 (3), 1413–1440. https://doi.org/10.3758/s13428-022-01851-2.
[7] Hehman, E., Calanchini, J., Flake, J. K., & Leitner, J. B. (2019). Establishing construct validity evidence for regional measures of explicit and implicit racial bias. Journal of experimental psychology. General, 148 (6), 1022–1040. https://doi.org/10.1037/xge0000623.
[8] Nerbonne, J. (2013). The secret life of pronouns. What our words say about us. Literary and Linguistic Computing, 29 (1), 139–142. https://doi.org/10.1093/llc/fqt006.
[9] Garg, N., Schiebinger, L., Jurafsky, D., & Zou, J. (2018). Word embeddings quantify 100 years of gender and ethnic stereotypes. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 115 (16). https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1720347115.
[10] Hattie, J., & Cooksey, R. W. (1984). Procedures for assessing the validities of tests using the “known-groups” method. Applied Psychological Measurement, 8 (3), 295–305. https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/014662168400800306.
[11] Burrows, J.F. (1987). Computation into Criticism: A Study of Jane Austen's Novels and an Experiment in Method. Oxford: Clarendon Press.
[12] Charlesworth, T. E. S., Caliskan, A., & Banaji, M. R. (2022). Historical representations of social groups across 200 years of word embeddings from Google Books. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 119 (28), e2121798119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2121798119.
[13] 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.
[14] Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? The Princeton Trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21 (11), 1139–1150. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672952111002.
[15] Hamilton, W. L., Leskovec, J., & Jurafsky, D. (2016). Diachronic Word Embeddings Reveal Statistical Laws of Semantic Change. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.1605.09096.
[16] Ke, L., Tong, S., Chen, P., & Peng, K. (2024). Exploring the frontiers of llms in psychological applications: A comprehensive review. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2401.01519.
[17] Gray, K., Yam, K. C., Zhen’An, A. E., Wilbanks, D., & Waytz, A. (2023). The psychology of robots and artificial intelligence. The handbook of social psychology. Dillion, D., Tandon, N., Dillion, D., Tandon, N., Gu, Y., & Gray, K. (2023). Can AI language models replace human participants? Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 27(7), 597-600. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tics.2023.04.008.
[18] Argyle, L. P., Busby, E. C., Fulda, N., Gubler, J., Rytting, C., & Wingate, D. (2022). Out of One, Many: Using Language Models to Simulate Human Samples. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.06899.
[19] Miotto, M., Rossberg, N., & Kleinberg, B. (2022). Who is GPT-3? An Exploration of Personality, Values and Demographics. arXiv preprint. https://doi.org/10.48550/arXiv.2209.14338.
[20] Abramski, K., Citraro, S., Lombardi, L., Rossetti, G., & Stella, M. (2023). Cognitive Network Science Reveals Bias in GPT-3, GPT-3.5 Turbo, and GPT-4 Mirroring Math Anxiety in High-School Students. Big Data and Cognitive Computing, 7 (3). https://doi.org/10.3390/bdcc7030124.
[21] Talboy, A. N., & Fuller, E. (2023). Challenging the appearance of machine intelligence: Cognitive bias in LLMs and Best Practices for Adoption. arXiv (Cornell University). https://doi.org/10.48550/arxiv.2304.01358.
[22] Salah, M., Al Halbusi, H., & Abdelfattah, F. (2023). May the force of text data analysis be with you: Unleashing the power of generative AI for social psychology research. Computers in Human Behavior: Artificial Humans, 1 (2). https://doi.org/10.1016/j.chbah.2023.100006.
[23] Grossmann, I., Feinberg, M., Parker, D. C., Christakis, N. A., Tetlock, P. E., & Cunningham, W. A. (2023). AI and the transformation of social science research. Science, 380 (6650), 1108-1109. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.adi1778.
[24] Floridi, L., & Chiriatti, M. (2020). GPT-3: Its Nature, Scope, Limits, and Consequences. Minds and Machines, 30 (4), 681-694. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11023-020-09548-1.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2024 Journal of Education, Humanities and Social Sciences

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial 4.0 International License.






