↓ Skip to main content

Racial bias in implicit danger associations generalizes to older male targets

Overview of attention for article published in PLOS ONE, June 2018
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 25% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (90th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (88th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
2 news outlets
twitter
5 X users
facebook
1 Facebook page
reddit
2 Redditors

Readers on

mendeley
35 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Article details
Title
Racial bias in implicit danger associations generalizes to older male targets
Published in
PLOS ONE, June 2018
DOI 10.1371/journal.pone.0197398
Pubmed ID
Authors

Gustav J. W. Lundberg, Rebecca Neel, Bethany Lassetter, Andrew R. Todd

Abstract

Across two experiments, we examined whether implicit stereotypes linking younger (~28-year-old) Black versus White men with violence and criminality extend to older (~68-year-old) Black versus White men. In Experiment 1, participants completed a sequential priming task wherein they categorized objects as guns or tools after seeing briefly-presented facial images of men who varied in age (younger versus older) and race (Black versus White). In Experiment 2, we used different face primes of younger and older Black and White men, and participants categorized words as 'threatening' or 'safe.' Results consistently revealed robust racial biases in object and word identification: Dangerous objects and words were identified more easily (faster response times, lower error rates), and non-dangerous objects and words were identified less easily, after seeing Black face primes than after seeing White face primes. Process dissociation procedure analyses, which aim to isolate the unique contributions of automatic and controlled processes to task performance, further indicated that these effects were driven entirely by racial biases in automatic processing. In neither experiment did prime age moderate racial bias, suggesting that the implicit danger associations commonly evoked by younger Black versus White men appear to generalize to older Black versus White men.

Login to access the Attention Digest and the Sentiment Analysis related to this output.

Timeline Attention over time Attention Score history
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
Activity
Login to access the full charts related to this output.
X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 5 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley demographics

Mendeley demographics

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 35 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Login to view Mendeley reader trends over time.

Geographical breakdown

Geographical breakdown
Country Count As %
Unknown 35 100%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status
Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 9 26%
Student > Bachelor 4 11%
Other 2 6%
Student > Doctoral Student 2 6%
Student > Master 2 6%
Other 5 14%
Unknown 11 31%
Readers by discipline
Readers by discipline Count As %
Psychology 15 43%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 6%
Social Sciences 2 6%
Arts and Humanities 1 3%
Computer Science 1 3%
Other 2 6%
Unknown 12 34%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 22. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 26 March 2026.
All research outputs
#2,149,577
of 34,234,015 outputs
Outputs from PLOS ONE
#23,595
of 224,114 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#34,104
of 373,941 outputs
Outputs of similar age from PLOS ONE
#410
of 3,445 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 34,234,015 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 93rd percentile: it's in the top 10% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 224,114 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 17.0. This one has done well, scoring higher than 89% of its peers.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 373,941 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 90% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 3,445 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done well, scoring higher than 88% of its contemporaries.