The dissertation centers on implicit attitudes, which refer to attitudes that are less conscious and more automatic than explicit attitudes. In three papers, I try to detail the contextual nature of implicit attitudes while also analyzing the tension between implicit and explicit attitudes.

In Study 1, I argue that certain implicit attitudes may be more contextual and malleable than previously thought. The argument is illustrated by showing how terror attacks in France affect implicit bias toward Arab Muslims. By analyzing the longevity and specificity of this effect, I also detail when and why implicit bias might change. The article consists of two parts. Part 1 shows that the attacks significantly increased implicit bias in France (n = 449), whereas Part 2 shows that the attacks had a similar effect globally (n = 25 795). There was no corresponding effect on explicit bias in either study.

In Study II, I combine research on banal and unconscious nationalism with cognitive psychology to outline a novel framework of so-called “implicit nationalism.” In the first part of the article, I detail how different events, symbols, and discourses affect nationalist attitudes and sentiments beyond conscious awareness and control. I argue that certain events and symbols affect implicit—but not necessarily explicit—nationalism by changing the accessibility of implicit nationalist associations. In the second part of the article, I use this framework to analyze the 2014 FIFA World Cup. The study consists of a natural experiment, including respondents from Germany, Brazil, and the United Kingdom. Winning the World Cup increased implicit nationalism in Germany, and losing decreased implicit nationalism in Brazil and the United Kingdom. Importantly, winning and losing had no corresponding effect on explicit nationalism in any country.

In Study III, I focus on differences between explicit and implicit perceptions of Swedishness. People report increasingly tolerant and inclusive attitudes in many Western countries, but minorities still face considerable (and in some cases growing) discrimination and exclusion. In this paper, I suggest that the discrepancy could be related to a difference between explicit and implicit attitudes. Most people may want to be inclusive and tolerant, but implicitly harbor more exclusionary views of belonging and national identity. To survey potential differences between explicit and implicit attitudes, I fielded a survey consisting of 217 Swedish participants who completed both explicit and implicit measures of perceived “Swedishness”. Participants evaluated four different minority groups: people with Norwegian, Finnish, Syrian, or Bosnian backgrounds. The results reveal large-scale differences between explicit and implicit perceptions and between groups. All groups were explicitly perceived as Swedish, but only people with a Norwegian background were implicitly perceived as Swedish. People with a Finnish background were perceived as neither Swedish nor foreign, while people with Bosnian and Syrian backgrounds were perceived as foreign.

By combining research on banal and unconscious nationalism with cognitive psychology, this article outlines a novelframework for so-called “implicit nationalism.” In the first part of the article, I detail how different events, symbols,and discourses affect nationalist attitudes and sentiments beyond conscious awareness and control. I argue that certainevents and symbols affect implicit—but not necessarily explicit—nationalism by changing the accessibility of implicitnationalist associations. In the second part of the article, I use this framework to analyze the 2014 FIFA World Cup.The study consists of a natural experiment, including respondents from Germany, Brazil, and the United Kingdom.Winning the World Cup increased implicit nationalism in Germany, and losing decreased implicit nationalism in Braziland the United Kingdom. Importantly, winning and losing had no corresponding effect on explicit nationalism in anycountry. The article concludes by discussing the implications for research on nationalism and implicit cognitions.

Sociology has recently seen a surge of interest in implicit culture, which refers to knowledge,habits, and feelings that are largely automatic and habitual. In this article, I argue that certainexpressions of implicit culture may be more contextual and malleable than previously thought. Theargument is illustrated by showing how terror attacks in France affect implicit bias toward ArabMuslims. By analyzing the longevity and specificity of this effect, I also detail when and why implicitbias might change. The article consists of two studies. Study 1 shows that the attacks significantlyincreased implicit bias in France (n = 449), whereas Study 2 shows that the attacks had a similareffect globally (n = 25795). There was no corresponding effect on explicit bias in either study. Idiscuss the implications of the findings for research on terror attacks, implicit bias, and implicitculture.

This paper examines the link between implicit racial bias and right-wing populism. Using data from 41,803 participants, I explore whether implicit racial bias predicts the support of right-wing populist parties (RPP) in France, Belgium, and the Netherlands. The results reveal a significant association between implicit racial bias and support of RPP, even when controlling for explicit bias. Additional analyses show that the effect of implicit racial bias is especially high for participants with high levels of explicit racial bias. Participants with negative explicit racial bias are thus especially likely to support RPP if they also have high levels of negative implicit racial bias. The study also finds a significant effect for participants with no explicit racial bias, although the effect is markedly smaller. 

Psychological dual-process theory has become increasingly popular among sociologists. The dualprocess framework accounts for two types of thinking; a fast, associative, automatic or subconscious System 1 thinking, and a slow, propositional and reflective System 2 thinking. The insight that the former can also be empirically studied by sociologists has the potential to significantly improve sociological research. However, dual-process theory is not undisputed within psychology; some scholars question the associative nature of fast thinking. This discussion has implications for how implicit cognition should be studied. In this paper, we introduce this discussion to a sociology audience, exemplifying with the case of implicit bias against Muslims. We evaluate these approaches drawing on a set of experiments conducted at Amazon's Mechanical Turk. We discuss the implications of our results for sociological research.

In Status Characteristics, Implicit Bias, and the Production of Racial Inequality, Melamed, Munn, Barry, Montgomery, and Okuwobi present an innovative and intriguing study on social influence, status beliefs, and implicit racial bias. To capture status-based expectancies, the authors measure implicit racial status beliefs using an Implicit Association Test (IAT) with words related to high and low status. We identify an important flaw in the study's analytic approach that severely limits the conclusions that can be drawn based on the study. We argue that the authors neglected to separate the valence of the words included in the racial status IAT with the stereotype content of these words. It is therefore possible that the study's racial IAT only captures implicit racial evaluations, and not status-based implicit racial beliefs.

While people in many Western countries report increasingly tolerant and inclusive attitudes, minorities continue to face considerable, and in some cases growing, discrimination and exclusion. In this paper, I suggest that the gap may stem from a discrepancy between explicit attitudes and more automatic, implicit attitudes. Most people may want to be inclusive and tolerant, but implicitly harbor more exclusionary views of belonging and national identity. To survey potential differences between explicit and implicit attitudes, I fielded a survey consisting of 217 Swedish participants who completed both explicit and implicit measures of perceived “Swedishness”. Participants were asked to evaluate four distinct minority groups: individuals with Norwegian, Finnish, Syrian, or Bosnian backgrounds. The results reveal significant differences between explicit and implicit perceptions, as well as between the different groups. All groups were explicitly perceived as Swedish, but only individuals with a Norwegian background were implicitly perceived as Swedish. The paper concludes by discussing the implications for research on Swedishness, national boundaries, and nationalism.