IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0334152.html

Registered report: Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice

Author

Listed:
  • Jordan L Thompson
  • Abigail L Cassario
  • Shree Vallabha
  • Samantha A Gnall
  • Sada Rice
  • Prachi Solanki
  • Alejandro Carrillo
  • Mark J Brandt
  • Geoffrey A Wetherell

Abstract

In this registered report, we stress-tested existing models for predicting the ideology-prejudice association, which varies in size and direction across target groups. Previous models of this relationship use perceived ideology, status, and choice in group membership of target groups to predict the ideology-prejudice association across target groups. These analyses show that models using only the perceived ideology of the target group are more accurate and parsimonious in predicting the ideology-prejudice association than models using perceived status, choice, and all three characteristics in one model. Here, we stress-tested the original models by testing the models’ predictive utility with new measures of explicit prejudice, a comparative operationalization of prejudice, the Implicit Association Test (IAT), and additional target groups. In Study 1, we directly tested the previous models using absolute measures of prejudice that closely resemble the measures used in the original study. Our results indicated that the models replicate with distinct, yet conceptually similar measures of prejudice. As in previous work, our ideology-only and ideology, status, and choice models were the best predictors of the ideology-prejudice association. In Study 2, we developed new ideology-prejudice models for a comparative operationalization of prejudice using both explicit measures and the Implicit Association Test. We tested these new models using data from the Ideology 2.0 project collected by Project Implicit. Our results indicate that this model-building strategy was not effective for relative or IAT prejudice measures. We found no significant differences in predictive ability between the models. These results indicate that the ideology-only and ideology, status, and choice models are effective in predicting the ideology-prejudice association in a variety of absolute prejudice measures, but our results suggest this may not generalize to relative or IAT measures.

Suggested Citation

  • Jordan L Thompson & Abigail L Cassario & Shree Vallabha & Samantha A Gnall & Sada Rice & Prachi Solanki & Alejandro Carrillo & Mark J Brandt & Geoffrey A Wetherell, 2025. "Registered report: Stress testing predictive models of ideological prejudice," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 20(10), pages 1-24, October.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334152
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0334152
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334152
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0334152&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0334152?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0334152. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    We have no bibliographic references for this item. You can help adding them by using this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.