C HAP TER 1 The Nature of Implicit Implications for Personal and Public Policy

CUR TI S D. HAR DIN

MA HZ AR I N R . BAN AJI

Some fifty years ago in Arkansas, nine black students In this chapter, we address the topics of stereotyp- initiated a social experiment with hel p from famil y, ing and prejudice, staying firml y withi n the bounds friends, and armed National Guards. Their success- f what science has demonstrated. However, in ful attempt to desegregate Little Rock's Central High keeping with the mission of this book, we spell out School following the decision i n Brown v. Board of what we see to be some obvious, and also some less Education is among the most momentous events in obvious, tentacles to questions of pu blic policy. We America's history, leaving no dou bt about its historic posed the following questions to ou rselves: What importance and the significance of its impact on pu b- are the broad lessons learned that have changed our lic policy. Nevertheless, as many have noted, even at u nderstandi ng of hu man nature and social relations the begi n ni ng of the twenty-first century, a blatant de in recent decades? In what way does the new view facto segregation in l iving and learni ng persists and r u n cou nter to long-held assumptions? How should in some circu mstances has intensified (e.g., Orfield, policy involvi ng i ntergroup relations proceed i n light 200 I ). The American experiment i n desegregation is of these discoveries? And, can we speak abou t "per- a reminder that public policies, however noble in in- sonal policies" that may emerge from the ed ucation tent, may not realize their aspirations if they do not in- of individuals about the constraints and flexi bility of cl ude an understanding of h u man nature and cultu re. their own mi nds while also consideri ng the notion of ln other words, they cannot succeed if they are not policy i n the usual "public" sense? Our contention is founded on relevant scientific evidence, which reveals that personal and public policy discussions regarding the natu re of the problem, the likely outcomes, and prejudice and discrimination are too often based on how social transformation can best be imagi ned. As an outdated notion of the nature of prejudice. Most an exam ple of the importance of basi ng policy in sci- contin ue to view prejudice as it was form ulated gener- ence, there is the research of Robert Pu tnam showing ations ago: negative attitudes about social grou ps and the unsavory resul t that ethnic diversity may actually their members rooted in ignorance and perpetuated increase social distrust. As the ethnic diversity by zip by individuals motivated by anim us and hatred. The code increases, so does mistrust of one's neigh bors, pri mary implication of the old view was that prejudice even same-ethnicity neigh bors ( Putnam, 2007). The is best addressed by changing the hearts and minds of naive optimism that diversity will succeed in the ab- individuals, for good-hearted people will think well of sence of a clear u nderstanding of the dynamics of so- others and behave accordingly. However, research in cial dominance and intergroup relations is challenged. recent years demonstrates that the old view of preju- by these and other similar revelations (e.g., Shelton, dice is incomplete, even dangerously so. Staying with Richeson, and Dovidio, this vol ume). Hence, even it would lead to policy choices that might be ineffec- well-intentioned pu blic policies are u nlikely to yield tual, or worse. Staying with it would be akin to ignor- positive outcomes unless they are grou nded i n the ing the evidence on smoking and cancer. best thinki ng avai lable about how people actually How has the scientific understanding of preju- thi n k and behave. Sadly, this has not been the case, dice changed? In short, we now know that the op- both because policy makers are not sufficiently re- eration of prejudice and stereotyping in social judg- spectful of the importance of science as the guide ment and behavior does not req uire personal anim us, to social issues

paradigm shift i n the social-psychological understand- exposure to pri me words either denotatively or con- ing of stereotyping and prejudice more generally. 1 notatively related to women (e.g., lady, nurse) than ; In the critical experiment, participants evaluated a words related to men (e.g., gentleman, doctor), and hypothetical person named "Donald" as more hostile judgments about male pronou ns were faster after ex- , if they had been subliminally exposed to a large versus posure to prime words related to men than women a small proportion of words related to common U.S. ( Banaji and Hardi n, 1996; Blair and Banaji, 1996). of African Americans. The finding was Similarly, people were faster to judge words associ- striking because it suggested that crude stereotypes ated with negative stereotypes of African Americans could operate u ni ntentionally and outside conscious after exposure to black faces than to white faces (e.g., awareness to influence social judgment, and it was Dovidio, Evans, and Tyler, 1986; Dovidio et al., disturbing because it showed that implici t stereotyp- 1997; Wittenbrink, ]Ltdd, and Park, 1997). Such re- ing ocrnrred to an equal degree whether participants sults have been taken to demonstrate the automatic explicitly endorsed racist attitudes or not. nature of beliefs or stereotypes when they capture as- This basic paradigm has since been used in scores sociations between social groups and their common of experiments that confirm the implicit operation stereotypes, and have been used to demonstrate the of prejudice and stereotypi ng in social judgment in- automatic nature of attitudes or preferences when cl udi ng, but not li mi ted to, ethnicity and race (e.g., they captu re associations between social groups and Dovidio et al., 1997), gender (e.g., Rudma n and common evaluations of them. Borgida, 1995), and age (e.g., Levy, 1996). As an ex- Research in this tradition suggests the ubiquity ample of the existence of implicit gender stereotypes, with which common prejudice and stereotypi ng oper- women bu t not men were judged as more dependent ates among all kinds of people along lines laid down after recent exposure to female stereotypes, and men by extant social relations on a variety of dimensions. but not women were judged as more aggressive after These include, but are not limited to, ethnicity and exposure to male stereotypes ( Banaji, Hardi n, and race (e.g., Nosek, Banaji, and Greenwald, 2002a), Rothman, 1993). The effects of salience gender (e.g., Banaji and Hardi n, 1996), sexual ori- were equally large for women and men, regardless of entation (e.g., Dasgupta and Rivera, 2008 ), body the levels of explici t prejudice. J n sum, research in this shape (e.g., Bessenoff and Sherman, 2000), the el- tradi tion suggests that mere knowledge of a stereo- derly ( Perdue and Gurtman, 1990), and adolescents type can influence social judgment regardless of ex- (Gross and Hardi n, 2007). Implicit prejudice of this plici t intentions and regardless of the social category kind develops early in children across (e.g., of the one doing the stereotyping.· Baron and Banaji, 2006; Dun ham, Baron, and Banaji, Research demonstrating the implicit influence 2006, 2007) and appears to involve specific brain of cognitively salient stereotypes in social judgment structures associated with nonrational thou ght (e.g., has been complemented by research in the second Cu nningham, Nezlek, and Banaji, 2004; Lieberman, paradigm that establishes the extent to which ste- 2000; Phelps et al., 2000). reotyping and prejudice operate as webs of cognitive associations. Like Freud's discovery that mental ar- Characteristics of Implicit Prejudice chitecture is revealed by quantifying what most easily comes to mi nd given targeted conceptual probes, the Although the identification of the course, conse- notion was initially captured in now-classic experi- quences, and natu re of implicit prejudice contin ues ments showing that judgments on "target" words are to evolve in research spanning disciplines, research faster if they are immediately preceded by brief expo- methodologies, and specific social categories, its fun- . sure to semantically related, as opposed to unrelated, damental characteristics are now firmly established. "prime" words (e.g., Meyer and Schvaneveldt, 1971; Implicit prejudice (a) operates unintentionally and Neely, 1976, 1977). These semantic relations are now outside awareness, (b) is empirically distinct from known to be highly correlated with those identified explicit prejudice, and ( c) uniquely predicts conse- 1 in free-association tasks (for a review see Ratcliff and quential social judgment and behavior. Underlying t McKoon, 1994). Extensive research demonstrates all claims about the operation of implicit prejudice is that a variety of social beliefs and attitudes function the fact that the implicit operation of stereotypes and as semantic and evaluative associations across several prejudice is robust and reliably measured, as indicated procedural variations, including conditions in which by hu ndreds of published experiments (e.g., Banaji, the prime words are exposed too quickly for peo- 2001; Greenwald and Banaji, 1995). In addition, re- 1 ple to see (for reviews see Fazio, 200 I ; Greenwald search shows that i mplicit prejudice is subject to social and Banaji, 1995). For example, simple judgments influence, a finding that is important to public policy about target female pronouns were faster after brief considerations, although the immediate operation of 16 • PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION implicit prejudice is difficult, if not impossi ble, to con- stereotypi ng. Similar experi ments that mani pulate trol through individ ual volition. stereotype salience th rough recent conscious expo- The most i mportant characteristic of im plicit prej- sure to stereotyped i nformation suggest that implicit udice is that it operates ubiquitously i n the cou rse of stereotypi ng can occur through the ki nd of mere ex- normal workaday information processi ng, ofren out- posure to stereotyped i nformation that occurs i n the side of individ ual awareness, in the absence of per- h urly-burly of everyday life in societies that are orga- sonal anim us, and generally despite individual equa- nized arou nd race, class, and gender (e.g., Rudman ni mity and deliberate attempts to avoid prejudice (for and Borgida, 1995). Moreover, research expressly reviews see Devi ne, 2005; Dovidio and Gaertner, designed to test the success of individ uals to control 2004 ). Evidence of this process includes experiments or fake their levels of i m plici t prejudice as assessed by demonstrati ng that social judgment and behavior is measures of association show that it is extremely dif affected i n stereotype-consistent ways by u nobtrusive, ficul t or i mpossible to do so ( Bielby, 2000), whether and even subliminal, manipul ations of stereotype sa- attitudes arc abou t gays (e.g., Banse, Seise, and lience. Typically i n these kinds of experiments, pa r- Zerbcs, 2001), ethnic grou ps (e.g., Kim, 2003), or ticipants attempt to be fai r and u nbiased and, more- gender (e.g., Blai r and Banaji, 1996). over, exhibit no evidence of knowi ng that thei r recent Independent of individ ual attempts to control the experience included exposu re to stereotypes used in operation of i mplicit prejudice, research shows that it thei r eval uations. Experi ments that manipulate ste- is nearly i mpossi ble to consciously correct for effects reotype salience subliminally through extremely rapid of im plicit prejudice (for one review sec Wegener and exposure to words 01· images make the case especially Petty, 1997). To do so, one m ust be in the unlikely strongly (for reviews see Bargh, 1999; Devi ne and circumstance of havi ng all at once (a) knowledge that Monteith, 1999). Interesti ngly, implicit prejudice of i m plicit prejudice is operating, ( b) both the motiva- this kind appears to operate regardless of the personal tion and cognitive capacity to control it, and perhaps characteristics of research participants, includi ng par- most u nlikely of all , ( c) precise knowled ge of the mag- ticipant social category, and regardless of i ndivid ual nitude and direction of the correction needed (e.g., differences i n related explicit attitudes and i mplicit at- Bargh, 1999; Fazio and Towles-Schwen, 1999). For titudes. The i mplication is that anyone who is aware of example, although individual differences i n explicit a common stereotype is l ikely to use it when it is cog- prejudice predict the overt interpersonal friendliness nitively salient and relevant to the judgment at hand of whites toward blacks, it is indi vid ual differences (e.g., Hardi n and Rothman, 1997; Higgi ns, 1996). in i mpl icit prejudice that predicts the nonverbal be- Com plementary evidence that prejudice operates havior of whites, which is the behavior that, i n tu rn, im plicitly comes from research usi ng measures of au- predicts black attitudes toward whites (e.g., Dovidio, tomatic cognitive association, including serial seman- Kawakami, and Gaertner, 2002). tic pri ming paradigms (e.g., Blai r and Banaji, 1996), The third critical characteristic of im plicit preju- subliminal serial paradigms (e.g., Fazio ct al., dice is that it is empirically disti nct from expl icit ] 995 ), and startle responses (e.g., Amodio, Harmon - prejudice, includi ng activating distinctive regions of Jones, and Devine, 2003 ), as well as behavioral i n- the brain (Cu n ningham, Nezlek, and Banaji, 2004). terference paradigms like Stroop tasks (e.g., Bargh Although explicit attitudes arc often u ncorrelated and Pratto, 1986; Richeson and Trawal ter, 2005) with the im plicit operation of prejudice (e.g., Devi ne, and i mplici t association tasks ( IAT; e.g., Greenwald, 1989; Fazio and Olson, 2003) and implicit preju- McGhee, and Schwartz, 1998). Hu ndreds of experi- diced associations (e.g., Gross and Hardin, 2007), ments usi ng these measu res suggest that people are correlations between im plicit and explicit attitudes generally surprised to learn that they have implicit actually vary widely across studies (e.g., Hofman n ct . al., 2005; Nosek, 2005). A pictu re of when and why A second major characteristic of implicit preju- i mplici t and explicit attitudes are li kely to be dissoci- dice is that it is difficu lt for individuals to deliberately ated has begu n to emerge. Baldl y explici t prejudice on modu late, control, or fake (for reviews sec Devi ne and the basis of race and gender ofrcn conflicts with social Monteith, 1999; Dovidio, Kawakami, and Gaertner, norms of equity and justice and hence is a domain 2002; Greenwald et al., 2009). Experiments like i n which impl icit-explicit attitude dissociations often Devinc's (1989), which demonstrate implicit preju- occur. In contrast, in domains i n which explicit at- dice through su blimi nal, u nconscious mani pulations titudes do not conflict with consensual social norms, of stereotype salience, by design preclude individual implicit and explicit attitudes are ofrcn correlated awareness and control, thereby demonstrati ng that (e.g., Gawronski, 2002; Greenwald ct al., 2009). For immediate conscious awareness of stereotyped infor- example, implicit prejudice is correl ated with amyg- mation is formally u nnecessary to produce im plicit dala activation (Cu nni ngham, Nezlek, and Banaji, THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 17

2004; Phelps ct al., 2000), and explicit prejudice is shoot gu n-toti ng black targets than white targets and more strongly correlated with prcfrontal cortex acti- faster and more accurately avoid shooting tool-toti ng vation (Cunningham et al., 2004; see also Amodio white targets than black targets (e.g., Correll ct al., et al., 2004). Most importantly, i mplicit prejudice 2002; Correll, Urland, and Ito, 2006). The finding uniq uely predicts related attitudes and behavior over is obtained among both white and black participants and above explicit prejudice and appears to be related alike, and even among protCssional police officers to distinct families of social judgment and behavior. (Correll ct al., 2007; Plant and Pcruche, 2005; Plant, Implicit attitudes are associated relatively more with Pcruchc, and Butz, 2005 ). In a similar experimental ; tacit learning, manipulations, and consequences, paradigm i n which participants were i nstructed to whereas explicit attitudes arc relatively more associ- distinguish between weapons and hand tools, partici- ated with intentionally controllable behaviors and at- pants were faster to correctly identify weapons after titudes (e.g., Olson and Fazio, 2003; Spalding and exposure to black faces than to white faces but faster Hardi n, 1999). to correctly identify tools after exposure to white faces , Because the u nique predictive validity of im plicit than to black faces ( Payne, 2001 ). A follow-up study prejudice is critical to appreciating its i mplications for demonstrated that partici pants u nder time pressure policy choices, we now turn to a detailed discussion were more likely to misidentify tools as gu ns after of this evidence in the context of policy implications. exposure to black faces but misidentify guns as tools : after exposure to white faces (sec also Govoru n and ' Payne, 2006; Payne, Shimizu, and Jacoby, 2005 ), a Consequences and Social Control of finding that is obtained even among professional po- Implicit Prejudice lice officers (Eberhard t ct al., 2004 ). Such findings have important implications for po- lice officers, given the broader finding that police con- The existence of implicit prejudice would be of little sistently use greater lethal and nonlethal force against practical consequence if it were an u nreliable predic- · nonwhite suspects than white suspects (e.g., for re- tor of social judgment and behavior, particularly given views sec U.S. Department of J ustice, 2001; Geller, the growing interest in its potential economic, labor, 1982). Indeed, Los Angeles police officers judge legal, and policy implications (e.g., Ayres, 2001; Banaji adolescents accused of shoplifti ng or assault more and Bhaskar, 2000; Banaji and Dasgupta, 1998; negatively and as more culpable when they have been Chugh, 2004; Greenwald and Krieger, 2006; Jost subliminally exposed to words related to common ste- ct al., 2009; Kang and Banaji, 2006; Tetlock and reotypes abou t blacks than words that are not related Mitchell, in press). However, research demonstrates to the stereotypes (Graham and Lowery, 2004). the consequential nature of implicit prejudice i n a vari- The implicit use of common stereotypes is not lim- ety of domains, including health, job satisfaction, vot- ited to issues of race bu t is also seen in matters of age ing behavior, and social interaction. Our discussion of and in instances of gender bias. For exam ple, the be- this evidence is organized around the two paradigms havior of a seventeen-year-old ( but not a sevcnty-onc- that led to the discovery of implicit prejudice in the ycar-old) toward a police officer is judged as more re- first place-the implicit effects of cognitively salient bellious after the latter's su blimi nal exposu re to words stereotypes and prejudice, and the predictive u tility of related to com mon adolescent stereotypes than with implicit associations between social groups and thei r exposure to words that are not, and the magnitude of presu med characteristics. \ the effect is unrelated to individ ual differences in ex- It plicit attitudes about adolescents (Gross and Hardin, Implicit Effects of Cognitively Accessible Stereotypes 2007). And, in a telli ng experiment involving ste- reotypes commonly traded in mass media (e.g., beer and Prejudice ads featuring bikini-clad models), recent exposu re to Perhaps the most disturbing aspect of im plicit preju- sexist versus nonsexist television advertisements was dice is that while cognitively salient stereotypes and shown to cause men to (a) evaluate a job applicant ; prejudices operate outside of conscious awareness, as more incapable and u nintelligent, ( b) evaluate her they produce qualitative changes in social judgment as more sexually attractive and receptive, ( c) make and behavior. Across some two dozen experiments in more sexual advances to her, and (d) evaluate her as which participants are presented with a series of images more deserving of being hi red ( Rud man and Borgida, of social situations and instructed to as quickly and ac- 1995). Herc, too, typical of experiments of this type, curatel y as possi ble "shoot" if the target is armed and the effect of exposu re to sexist ads was u nqualified by "don't shoot" if the target is unarmed, the finding individ ual differences i n explici t endorsement of sexist is consistent: participants faster and more accurately beliefs and attitudes. --- --

18 • PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Im plicit prejudice and stereotyping is nt limited Implicit Prejudice as Cognitive Associations to judgments of others, however, but also affects slf- Common stereotypes and prejudice not only affect judgment and behavior, especially with regard to m- social judgn1ent and behavior implicitly, but several tellectual performa nce. For example, Asian American women believe they are relatively better at math than measures of implicit attitudes have been developed verbal skills when they have identified thei r ethnic- (for reviews see Olson and Fazio, 2003; Witten brink ity, but better at verbal than math skills when they and Schwartz, 2007), and research based on h u n- have identified thei r gender (e.g., Sinclai r, Hardin, dreds of studies shows that implicit attitude measures and Lowery, 2006). Even more striki ng are findings are stable over time, internally consistent, and reli- that similar manipulations implicitly affect stereotype- ably predict related judgments and behaviors, includ- related intellecwal performance. Consistent with the ing political attitudes, voting, academic achievement respective stereotypes, blacks, but not whites, per- scores, consumer prderences, social evaluation, hir- form worse on G RE advanced exams when ethnic- ing decisions, and verbal and nonverbal affiliation (for ity is salient (e.g., Steele and Aromon, 1995), and reviews see Fazio and Olson, 2003; Nosek, 1995; women, bm not men, perform worse on GR.E qua n- Perugi ni, 2005 ). According to a recent meta-analysis titati ve exams (Spencer, Steele, and Quinn, 1999), (Greenwald et al., 2009), although implicit and ex- and worse on a logic task bu t not an identical ver- plicit attitudes are commonly uncorrelated with each bal task, when gender is salient (Cheun g and Hardin , other, implicit measures are, on average, comparably 20 I 0 ). Simila rl y, older, but not you nger people, per- correlated with criterion measures and usually more form worse on memory tasks when age is salient (e.g., strongly correlated with measures of socially sensitive Levy, 1996), and students from low, but not high, behavior than explicit measu res. In short, where ste- socioeconomic backgrou nds perform worse on i n- reotyping and prejudice are concerned, implicit mea- tellectual tasks when economic status is sal ient (e.g., sures generall y predict behavior better than explicit Croizet and Clai re, I 998; Harrison et al., 2006 ). measu res. Moreover, gender and ethnic stereotypes can i nter- Unlike explicit measures, in which predictive va- act to prod uce especially large decrements in the lidity ofren declines substantially for socially sensitive math and spatial performance of Latina women (e.g., criteria, the predictive validity of implicit measures Gonzales, B!Jnton, and Williams, 2002). Such per- typically does not. For example, in a study reported formance discrepancies are also evident via functional by Rudman and Ashmore (2007), implicit preju- magnetic resona nce i magi ng (fMlU) data. For exam- dice u niq uely predicts self reported hostile behavior ple, women not only perform worse on mental rota- among whites toward blacks, including ethnic slu rs, tion tasks when negative stereotypes are salient but ostracism, and verbal and physical abuse, and does so performance decrements are correlated with greater over and above explicit attitudes and prejudice. In a activity i n brai n regions associated with emotion and second study, implicit prejudice among whites toward implicit prejudice (Wraga ct al., 2007). Jews, Asians, and blacks was shown to predict prefer- Congruent wi th evidence discussed throughout ences to de-fu nd campus organizations representing this paper, the conseq uences of implicit prejudice to Jews, Asians, and blacks, respectively-again, over the self echo the pri nci pled operation of implicit prej- and above explicit attitudes and prejudice. Implicit udice more generally. Stereotypes are dou ble-edged prejudice can also predict prejudice-related judg- swords and hence can sometimes boost performance. ments when explicit attitudes do not, particularly in For example, Asian American women perform better cases of intergroup relations (reviewed in Greenwald on quantitative tests when their ethnicity is salient et al., 2009). For exam ple, u nli ke explicit prejudice, than when their gender is salient (e.g., Shih, Pitti nsky, implicit racial prejudice among whites predicts quick- and Am bady, I 999). Whether positive or negative, ness to perceive anger i n black faces bu t not white threat effects emerge early in devel- faces (Hugenberg and Boden hausen, 2003). opment and appear with increasi ng strength through- It is one thi ng for individ ual differences in implicit ou t elementary and middle school (e.g., Ambady et prejudice to predict attitudes and judgment, bu t it is al., 2001 ). Finally, evidence suggests that these kinds quite another for it to predict behavior. Implicit at- of effects are more li kely to ocrnr when the relevant titudes predict nonverbal friendliness and discomfort stereotypes are made salient in subtle ways rather of whites when interacting with blacks (Dovidio et than blatantly (Shih et al., 2002 ), congruent with our al., 1997, 2002) and how positively bbcks perceive broader argu ment about the insidious role that im- whites with whom they interact ( Dovidio, Kawakami, plicit prejudice plays i n everyday social cognition and and Gaertner, 2002; Fazio et al., 1995; Sekaquaptewa behavior. et al., 2003). For example, i n research particularly THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 19

telling for common ed ucational and school situations, preferences for consumer goods like yogu rt, bever- Richeson and Shelton (2005) fou nd that in face-to- ages, and fast-food restau rants ( Maison, Greenwald, face interpersonal interactions, individual ditlerences and Bruin, 2004). In addition, red uctions in implicit in implicit prejudice were more apparent to black than romantic attraction predict the su bsequent breakup white perceivers and more apparent when whites in- of committed relationshi ps ( Lee, Rogge, and Reis, teracted with blacks than with other whi tes (sec also 2010). Perugini, O'Gorman, and Prestwich, 2007; Ziegert In addition to the large and growi ng l i teratu re and Ranges, 2005). demonstrati ng the predictive validi ty of measu res of Implicit attitudes not only affect social judgment implicit attitudes i n matters of everyday lifr, research and behavior relative to others but also are important shows that implicit prejudice predicts behavior out- predictors of one's own behavior and self-evaluation. side the laboratory. For example, im plicit preference For example, implici t, but not explicit, self-esteem among Swedish job recruiters for native Swedes over predicts anxious behavior in self-threatening situ a- Arabs predicts i nterview prelerences ( Rooth, 20 IO). tions bu t not in u nthreateni ng situations (Spaldi ng Overall, native Swedes were more than th ree times and Hardi n, 1999; see also Asendorpf, Banse, and more likely to receive interview callbacks than equally Mucke, 2002; Egloff and Schmukle, 2002 ). Women q ualified Arabs. who implicitly associate romance with chivalry report Several studies demonstrate that implicit preju- less interest in economic and educational achieve- dice predicts voti ng behavior, i ncl udi ng the historic ment (Rudman and Heppen, 2003), and implicit dis- 2008 election i n which Barack Obama became the sociations between the concepts of math and women first African American to be elected president of predict lower quantitative SAT scores among women the United States. For example, i n the week before (Nosek, Banaji, and Greenwald, 2002b). Fi nally, a the election, implicit antiblack prejudice predicted in- surprising number of African Americans exhibit im- tention to vote for John McCain over Obama an d plicit preference for whites over blacks (e.g., Nosek, did so independently of self.reported conservatism Banaji, and Greenwald, 2002a). Variability in implicit (Greenwald et al., 2009). Another study fou nd that antiblack prejudice among African Americans pre- the degree to which participants im plicitly associated dicts stated prderences for worki ng with white versus America more with McCain than Obama predicted black partners on intellectually demandi ng tasks and i ntention to vote for McCain (Devos and Ma, 2010). does so i ndependently of explicit attitudes (Ashbu rn- Implicit prejudice not only predicts voti ng inten- Nardo, Knowles, and Monteith, 2003), a finding sug- tions before elections bu t also reported voting be- gesting that the general tendency tO favor in-grou ps havior after elections. Voters were su bstantially less over out-groups may be tru mped by implicit stereo- likely to report voti ng for Barack Obama, and exhi b- types relevant to the task at hand (see also Rudman, ited more negative attitudes toward he,llth care re- Feinberg, and Fairchild, 2002). form, the greater their implicit prejudice ( Knowles, \ Most of the research on the predictive validity of Lowery, and Shaumbcrg, 2010), and, i n a follow- implicit prejudice discussed th us far i nvolves under- up study cond ucted nearly a year after the election, grad uate participant samples in laboratory settings, im plicit prejudice remai ned a signi ficant predictor , yet one might rightly wonder whether implicit prej- of negative attitudes toward Obama. Moreover, im- t udice will matter i n daily tasks, big and small. One plicit prejudice predicted negative attitudes about reason to believe that it will is research showing that health-care reform when it was ascribed to Obama , among people who have finished their formal educa- but not when the identical reform was ascri bed to Bill tion, implicit attitudes predict behavior and judgment Clinton. Similar findings have obtained i n studies of !..:ts on dimensions that matter to people beside college the Italian electorate, as well (e.g., Arcuri ct al., 2008; students and do so on a variety of dimensions of un- Galdi, Arcuri, and Gawronski, 2008; Roccato and denia ble real-world application. For example, implici t Zogmaister, 2010). i attitudes predict suicide attempts (Glashouwer et al., Another area of society i n which the real-world 2010; Nock and Banaji, 2007; Nock et al., 2010), operation of implicit prejudice is implicated is i n the severity and treatment outcomes for phobia and panic practice of medicine, in which difterential treatment disorders (e.g., Teachman, Marker, and Smith-Janik, as a function of ethnicity is a well-docu mented case 2008; Teachman, Smith-Janik, and Saporito, 2007; in poi nt. A recent study of emergency-room treat- Teachman and Woody, 2003), condom use (Marsh, ment of more than 150,000 patients complai ning Joh nson, and Scott-Sheldon, 2001 ), smoking status of severe pain over a 13-year span found that whites (Swanson, Rud man, and Greenwald, 2001), alco- were given powerful opioid pai n killers more than J. hol consu mption (Weirs et al., 2002), and consu mer blacks and Hispanics, with evidence suggesting that 20 • PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION the disparity is d ue more to undertreatment of mi- that the predictive validity of implicit prejudice on ui norities rather than overtreatment of whites (Pletcher judgment and behavior is a quirk of the laboratory eii et al., 2008). Racial disparities are well documented (see also Jost et al., 2009). for treatment of cardiovascular disease as well (for ii 1 a review see Kressin and Petersen, 2001), includi ng id Social Control of Implicit Prejudice I expensive treatments for acute myocardial infarction n; (e.g., Petersen et al., 2002 ). Given evidence that implicit prejudice is reliably Iii New evidence suggests that at least one cause for captured and measured and that it is consequential,

such fi ndings may be individual differences in im- ubiquitous, and stubbornly immune to individual at- I plicit prejudice among treating physicians. In a study tempts to control it, what hope is there for effective 9 that assessed both explicit and implicit attitudes to- policy solutions? Although implicit prejudice presents I ward whites and blacks and treatment recommenda- challenges to public policy formulations based on rl tions for hypothetical patients who differed only as outdated notions of the nature of prejudice, recent l a function of an experimental manipulation of race, research shows that it behaves in predictable ways that ij emergency-room physicians exhibited strong implicit conform to fundamental principles of social and cog- preference for whites over blacks, and also strong im- nitive psychology. Implicit prejudice reflects stable so- iJ plicit associations of blacks versus whites for being u n- cial relationships and organization by reflecting social t cooperative, despite exhibiti ng no explicit preferences identities, group categorizations and status, as well as for whites or differences in cooperativeness between general preferences for the self, similar others, and in- whites and blacks. Importantly, however, although groups (e.g., Bosson, Swann, and Pennebaker, 2000; n explicit attitudes did not predict emergency treatment Greenwald, McGhee, and Schwartz, 1998; Spalding recommendations, implicit attitudes did. Greater im- and Hardin, 1999). Moreover, evidence suggests tj plicit prejudice predicted an increasing likelihood to that implicit prejudice is responsive to social dynam- treat whites and a decreasing likelihood to treat blacks ics, including (a) relative intergroup status (e.g., exhibiting identical symptoms (Green et al., 2007). Rudman, ·Feinberg, and Fairchild, 2002), ( b) mini- l By extension, and perhaps unsurprisingly, implicit ra- mal group categorization (Ashburn-Nardo, Voils, :I cial bias among physicians negatively predicts African and Monteith, 2001), (c) chronic and temporary i/ American patient satisfaction with their physicians changes in the salience of prejudice-related informa- tl ( Penner et al., 2010). tion (e.g., Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001), and (d) Consistent with laboratory findings suggesting friendly intergroup contact (e.g., Tam et al., 2006 ). ! that implicit attitudes should be uniquely strong pre- Implicit prejudice can also increase and decrease as I dictors of counternormative behavior, implicit nega- a function of conditioning that is consistent with the i tive attitudes toward injection-drug users among drug fundamentals of learning theory (e.g., Bargh, 1996; 1i and alcohol nurses who treat them predicts nurses' Fazio 2001, 2003; Fazio and Olson, 2003; Hardi n i stated intentions to leave drug and alcohol nurs- and Rothman, 1997), and it generally conforms to I ing, over and above relevant explicit attitudes (von princi ples of cognitive consistency (e.g., Greenwald et i Hippe!, Brener, and von Hippe!, 2008),2 corroborat- al., 2009). ing laboratory demonstrations of the unique predic- An obvious but important indication of the way tive power of implicit measures when judgments are implicit prejudice reflects social dynamics is the fact potentially nonnormative (Greenwald et al., 2009). that it so well tracks the character of chronic social i In other words, although the medical model frames organization, including relative group power, social drug and alcohol abuse as an invol untary disease to status, and concomitant stereotypes. For example, al- be treated, and as such abusers should be worthy of though in-group preference is a common teature of l sympathy, the day-to-day experience with a popula- implicit prejudice (e.g., Greenwald et al., 1998), at tion known to be difficult and challenging by a part of least as important are findings that it reflects social ' the medical community that is known to have a high status. Members of high-status groups in the United job turnover rate may make expressly negative atti- States not only exhibit greater implicit group favorit- tudes about abusers counternormative. In addition, it ism than low-status groups but also do so as a func- is implicit prejudice (but not explicit prejudice) that tion of their relative status, whether they are rich, mediates the well-documented relation between stress white, skinny, or Christian (e.g., Nosek et al., 2002a; and intention to change jobs (von Hippe!, Brener, Rudman, Fein berg, and Fairchild, 2002). However, and von Hippe!, 2008). at the same time, although in-group preference is ! In short, research demonstrating the real-world common i n both implicit and explicit prejudice, out- i applicability of implicit attitudes continues to grow, group preference is hardly rare (e.g., Jost and Banaji, and it is no longer credible to hide behind the view 1994) and also closely aligns with relative group THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 21

status. For exam ple, members of low-status grou ps group mem bers toward high-status grou p members e were more likely to implicitly favor dominant out- than it is for high-status grou p mem bers toward low- groups to the extent that their i n-group was low i n status grou p mem bers. That is, i n this study, out- status, despite exhibiting strong explicit i n-group fa- group friendships predicted greater red uctions in voritism (Jost, Pelham, and Carvallo, 2002; Rudman, implicit prejudice for Musli ms than Christians and for Fein berg, and Fairchild, 2002). blacks than whites due to their places i n the social : Implicit prejudice not on ly reflects stable social hierarchy. and organizational hierarchies, but research shows Research also indicates that implicit prejudice that changes in social organization also predict cor- is affected by social dynamics throu ghou t develop- responding changes in im plicit prejudice, a findi ng ment (e.g., Baron and Banaji , 2006; Rutland et al., that has promising im plications for public policy. 2005) and that the development of implicit prejudice Friendly intergroup contact is shown to red uce both is likely to be bound up with interpersonal dynam- implicit and explicit prejudice alike (e.g., Henry and ics involving i nterpersonal identification and inter- Hardin, 2006; Turner, Hewstone, and Voci, 2007). subjectivity (e.g., Hardi n and Conley, 2001; Hardin In one example, implicit prejudice toward gay and and Higgi ns, 1996). For example, implicit intergroup lesbian people was found to be lower for people who prejudice between Korean and Japanese students : reported high levels of long-term contact with gay in the United States was greater to the degree that and lesbian people as well as for people who reported participants remained connected to their ethnic heri- being exposed to gay-positive media (Cheu ng et al., tage as indicated by linguistic fluency (Greenwald, 2011; Dasgupta and Rivera, 2008). Similarly, im- McGhec, and Schwartz, 1998). People exhibited plicit prejudice toward the elderly was lower among more positive implicit attitudes toward women to the :e college students the more friendships they reported degree that they reported being raised more by their having with older people (Tam ct al., 2006 ). In yet mothers than their fathers ( Rudma n and Goodwi n, another example, implicit prejudice was fou nd to be 2004). And, implicit racial prejudice among white 1 , lower between British and South Asian child ren in fou rth- and fifth-grade children was correlated with England to the extent that they reported out-group the explicit prejudice of their parents, but only to the · friendshi ps, and implicit prejudice was reduced even extent that they identified with their parents (Sinclair, : among chi ldren who reported no out-group friend- Lowery, and Du n n, 2005), and the im plicit preju- ships themselves bu t who reported having friends dice of mothers predicted racial preferences exhib- who did (Turner, Hcwstone, and Voci, 2007). Causal ited by thei r th ree- to six-year-old child ren (Castelli, modeling in this research indicates that the findings Zogmaister, and Tomelleri, 2009). are more consistent with intergroup friendships af- Research demonstrati ng the long-term social de- fecting implicit prejudice than with implicit preju- termi nants of implicit prejudice is likely to be either dice affecting friendshi p patterns (Tam et al., 2006; encouraging or depressing, depend ing u pon one's Turner, Hewstone, and Voci, 2007), a concl usion sense of the likelihood of broad, long-term changes i n : corroborated experimentally. For example, implicit social organization and cu l ture. It is important, how- prejudice among white college freshmen was red uced ever, to remem ber that such thi ngs do happen. What more over the course of their first school term if they changes in implicit prejudice might be revealed if the - were randomly assigned to a black roommate than a measures had been in existence long enough to re- white room mate (Shook and Fazio, 2007). flect suffrage, women's mass entry into the workforce ,( Although friendly intergrou p contact generally during World War II, the civil rights movement, and reduces impl icit intergroup prejudice, recent findings twentieth-century urban white flight, to name just a demonstrate that intergroup contact does not always few societal sea changes? have purely positive outcomes. For example, anti- Although we believe that cu l tu re-wide changes i n adolescent implici t prejudice among adolescents was implicit prejudice will req uire -wide changes greater to the degree that they reported havi ng close i n social organization and practice, another way in friendships with adults (Gross and Hardi n, 2007). which implicit prejudice obeys principles of social Evidence also suggests that relatively stable aspects psychology ofters some promise of more immediate, of social hierarchy complicate matters. In research in- if local, opportu ni ties for progress. Research shows volving blacks and whites in Chicago and Christians that implicit prejudice is subject to the demands of and Muslims in Lebanon, implicit intergroup preju- immediate situations and interpersonal dynamics, dice was shown to be lower to the degree that par- m uch like human behavior more generally (e.g., Ross ticipants reported out-group friendships ( Henry and and Nisbett, 1991). For example, white partici pants Hardin, 2006 ). However, results also indicate that exhibited lower im plicit prejudice i n the presence implicit prejudice red uction is greater for low-status of a black experimenter than a white experimenter 22 • PR EJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

( Lowery, Hardin, and Sinclair, 2001; Richeson and In a cautionary note, however, the lack of long- Am bady, 2003). Interesti ngly, however, Lowery term exposure to a particular group can sometimes and colleagues (2001) also found that this auto- trigger greater implicit prejudice when a member of matic social tu ning ctfrct did not occur among Asian the group is present. In one example, people who re- America n particip:rnts, whose implici t prejudice was ported having no gay friends at all exhibited greater red uced only when the experimenter expressly told implicit antigay prejudice when a male experimenter them to avoid prejudice. This finding suggests that incidentally mentioned his "boyfriend" than when he although the norm to avoid prejudice may operate mentioned his "girlfriend." Similarly, women who tacitly fix some, it may require explication for people reported having no lesbian friends exhibited greater who do not yet recognize their potential rnle as ci- implicit antilesbian bias when the experimenter was phers of prejudice. from a gay and lesbian organization (Cheung et al., Research also suggests that the interpersonal regu- 2011). This research complements research showing lation of implicit prejudice is due in part to a moti- immediate social i nfluence on implicit prejudice. It vation to affiliate with others who are presumed to suggests that as powerfol as i mmediate social norms hold specific val ues related to prejudice, as implied by might be, implicit prejudice is ultimately expressed shared reality theory (e.g., Hardi n and Conley, 2001 ). differently from individ ual to individual as a function For example, participants exhi bited less implicit racial of attitudes presumed to be held by others in relevant prejudice in the presence of an experimenter wearing long-term social relationships, sometimes in subtle a T-shirt with an antiracism message than a blank T- or even contradictory ways, much as it depends on shirt, but only when the expe1·imenter was likeable other dimensions of social cognition (e.g., Hardi n (Sinclair et al., 2005 ). When the experimenter was not and Higgins, 1996). likeable, implicit prejudice was actually greater i n the Research demonstrating that implicit preju- presence of the ostensibly egalitarian experimenter. dice is subject to social influence is broadly consis- In addition, social tuning in these experiments was tent with principles of information processing (for mediated by the degree to which participants liked a review see Blair, 2002 ). Implicit racial prejudice the experimenter, providing convergi ng evidence that is reduced (a) when ad mired black exemplars are i nterpersonal dynamics play a role in the modulation used (e.g., Dasgupta and Greenwald, 2001; cf. De of implicit prejudice, as they do in other dimensions Houwer, 2001), ( b) after seeing an image of blacks of social cognition ( Hardin and Conley, 2001; Hardin at a friendly barbeque versus u nfriendly street corner and Higgins, 1996). (Wittenbri nk, Judd, and Park, 2001 ), and ( c) imagin- As regards public and personal policy, these find- ing the virtues of multicultural education (Richeson ings suggest that a public stance for egalitarian val - and Nussbaum, 2004). In contrast, implicit racial ues is a double-edged sword, and a sharp one at that. prejudice is i ncreased after exposure to violent rap Although it may red uce implicit prejudice among music ( Rudman and Lee, 2002). Implicit gender ste- others when espoused by someone who is likeable reotypi ng is red uced for those who have recently been and high in status, i t may backfire when espoused by exposed to images of fomale leaders ( Dasgupta and someone who is not likeable or otherwise of margi nal Asgari, 2004) or have recently imagined a powerful status. This finding suggests one mechanism by which woman ( Blair, Ma, and Lenton, 2001 ). This research common frmns of "sensitivity training" in service of suggests that simple images and text in im mediate the red uction of workplace sexism and may be situations can affect levels of implicit prejudice for su bverted by interpersonal dynamics, however laud- those in the situation i n ways that are broadly congru- able the goals. ent with construct accessibility theory (e.g., Bargh, Demonstrati ng the utility of specific interventions 1996), which is the "common language" that u nder- to red uce implicit prejudice, Rud man, Ashmore, and lies most information-processing theory in social cog- Gary ( 2001) found that diversity education with a nition (Higgins, 1996). likeable black professor reduced implicit prejudice Taken together, research on the social con- and did so through liki ng for the professor, increased trol of implicit prejudice is broadly congruent friendships with other African Americans, and re- with the Marxian maxim that egalitarian societies duced fear of blacks. Likewise, thinking about gay- elicit egalitarian-minded people, as well as with the positive rnle models reduced implicit prejudice for Skinnerian maxim that admirable individual behav- those with low contact with gay and lesbian people ior is elicited by situations that reinforce admirable to the level of those with high contact and increased behaior. Indeed, the methodological and theoreti- the endorsement of gay-positive attitudes, including cal adnnces that have transformed the understand- legalizing civil u nions for gays and lesbians (Dasgupta ing of the nature of prejudice-including sometimes- and Rivera, 2008). puzzling relations between implicit and explicit THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 23

prejudice- resonates with what Skinner argued about while further ingraining the superiority of the domi- the relation between scientific advances and the u n- nants. Were the effects of prejudice and stereotypes derstanding of human nature more generally: less systematic, policy intervention wou ld be less needed because their effects may be said to cancel The line between public and private is not fixed. each other ou t. However, when, for exam ple, over The bou ndary shifts with every discovery of a 80% of American whites and Asians show antiblack tech nique for making private events pu blic . . . bias and over 90% of Americans show anti-elder bias, The problem of privacy may, therefore, eventually we must pay heed. Policies that are willi ng to take be solved by technical advance. into accou nt the presence of implicit forms of preju- -B.F. Skinner, 1953, p.282 dice and discrimi nation as a given will be the more : forward-thi nking instruments for change because : they will be rooted i n a tru th abou t h u man nature Conclusions and social contexts. Furthermore, for societies that derive thei r sense

1 It is not far-fetched to argue that successful policy of good character on the basis of personal accomplish- • solutions to the problem of prejudice are best pur- ment and meritocracy, research on im plicit prejudice . sued in light of the science of the nature of preju- poses particularly thorny problems. The research we dice. Research in recent decades has revealed the reviewed suggests that behavior is shaped by the social ! insidious capacity of prejudice to operate implicitly- jostli ng and "sloshing around" of the individ ual, unbe- unwittingly, unintentionally, and unavoidably- as well knownst to the person and those arou nd her, sug- as its course, conseq uences, and control at the nexus gesting that the problem of i mplicit prejudice may be of individ ual cognition and social relations. In some especially i nsidious i n a society that celebrates, evalu- ways, the transformativc understanding of the nature ates, and is organized around individual meritocracy. of prejudice brings full circle the story of h uman na- Indeed, research shows that beliefs i n meritocracy pose ture since its inception in American social psychology special problems for members of stigmatized groups i n the mid-twentieth-century work of Sherif, Lewi n, (e.g., Jost and Burgess, 2000; Jost and Thompson, Asch, and others as an attempt to understand how 2000). For example, Filipi na domestic workers in seemingly good people can participate in genocide, Hong Kong, as well as women i n the United States, which is also captured i n Hannah Arencl t's memo- devalued the monetary val ue of their work more if rable phrase, "the banality of evil." their group identity was salient, but do so on ly to the Indeed, the most important thing to know about degree that they endorsed system-justifyi ng attitudes the nature of prejudice is that it is ever present i n related to meritocracy (Cheu ng and Hardi n, 2010). \ hu man behavior and cognition. It remains sufficiently The aggregation of these ki nds of effects, both large in the background such that it eludes conscious and small, but systematically organized across situa- awareness and immediate individual control, yet it is tions and social roles, suggests at the very least the often consequential in everyday life. Its capacity to af- possibility that even i ncrementally small biases may be

· fect social judgment and behavior without personal expressed through actions that create a large divide • animus or hostility is dismissed or ignored at some among people. peril, because a continued focus on the problem of Research demonstrati ng the effects of stereotypes prejudice as a result of the nonnormativcly hostile and prejudice on behavior give direction to policy behavior of the few is likely to distract policy mak- makers for the types of behavior most in need of their attention. It is our contention that locati ng the prob- · ers from adopting strategies more strongly rooted in lem of prejudice in a few problematic individ uals and t the science of the many. What remains are questions about how best to deal with these discoveries in shap- designing solutions to the problem around this view ing personal and public policy-questions that are in is to miss the point. The profou nd implication of the this light only beginning to receive the empirical at- discovery of implicit prejudice is that anybody is capa- tention they deserve. ble of prejudice, whether they know it or not, and of What must enter into any policy computation are stereotyping, whether they want to or not. Therefore, additional facts about the nature of prejudice beyond given the i mplicit operation of prejudice and ste- the primary idea that banality is its modus operandi. reotypi ng and i ts ubiq uitous nature, we believe that sol u tions should focus on identifying the enabling . We must add to this the idea that prejudices and ste· reotypes arc rooted in social consensus; they are not conditions that call ou t prejudice and stereotypi ng random. Within a given society, the likes, dislikes, and across individuals rather than focusing on identifying beliefs that constrain some and privilege others occu r the rotten apples. Once identified, we must focus on in patterns that systematically oppress subordinates the enabling conditions that promote egalitarianism 24 • PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION and healthy individ uation. What kinds of situations Asendorpf, J. B., Banse, R., and Mucke, D. (2002 ). Double bring out implicit egalitarian attitudes? Congruent dissociation between implicit and explicit personal- 11 with well-docu mented pri nciples identified across the ity seltconcept: The case of shy behavior. Journal of ,i Personality and Social Psychology, 83, 380-393. • I behavioral and mi nd sciences and corroborated i n re- I search on implicit prejudice, social situations popu- Ashburn-Nardo, L., Knowles, M. L., and Montei th, M. J. lated with powerfol, likeable people who are known (2003). Black Americans' implicit racial associations e! or assumed to hold egalitarian values implicitly call and their i mplications for intergroup judgment. Socitil al

I out like mi nds i n those arou nd them. Cognition, 21, 61-87. Pl Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., and Monteith, M. J. q (200I ). I mplicit associations as the seeds of inter- . Notes group bias: How easily do they take root? Journal of Personality and Social P;ycho/ogy, 81, 789-799. fl : 1 We thank Sanden Averett, Rick Cheung, John Jost, Ayres, I. (2001 ). Pervasive prejudice? Unconventional i1 Michael Magee, Ekbr Shafir, and two anonymous reviewers evidence of race and gender discrimination. Chicago: p for thoughtfol com ments on a previous draft of this paper. University of Chicago Press. jj I 1. Here and throughout we adopt conventions of social- Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitudes can be measured. cq psychological nomenclature in ou r use of terms. The um- In H. I. Roediger and J. S. Nai rne (Eds.), The natttre I I brella term attitude includes eval u.uions ( prejudice), beliefs of remembering: Essays in honor of Robert G. Crowder lJ (stereotypes), a nd behaviors (discri mination) regarding an ( pp. 117-150). Washi ngton, DC: American Psycho- s attitude object. The terms explicit and implicit are used to logical Association. capture a well-.1Cccpted heu ristic dichotomy between modes Banaji, M. R., Bazerman, M., and Chugh, D. (2003, De- :\ of mental fimctions that operate largely consciously and cember). How (un)ethical are you? Harvard Business oq reAectively versus u nconsciously and automatically. Hence, Review, pp. 56-64. .1" implicit attitude reters to the strength of automatic associa- Banaji, M. R., and Bhaskar, R. (2000). Implicit stereotypes tion between ,111 attitude object and characteristic attri bu tes, and memory: The bounded rationality of social be- implicit prejudice rcters to the strength of automatic associa- liefs. In D. L. Schacter and E. Scarry ( Eds.), Memory, l tions between social grou ps and attributes good and bad, bmin, and belief ( pp. 139-175). Cambridge, MA: and implicit stereotyping rders to the strength of au tomatic Harvard University Press. j associations between social groups and characteristic attri- Banaji, M. R., and Dasgupta, N. ( 1998). The butes which may vary i n eval uative valence. of social beliefs: A program of research on stereotyp-

2. Specific intention to change jobs is the strongest i ng and prejudice. In V. Y. Yzerbyt, G. Lories, and B. I known predictor of actual volu ntary job changes (van Dardenne ( Eds.), Metacognition: Cognitive and social Breukelen, v.rn der List, and Steensma, 2004 ). dimensions ( p p. 157-170). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage. Banaji, M. R., and Greenwald, A. G. ( 1994). Implicit stereo- typi ng and prejudice. In M. P. Zanna and J. M. Olson gj I References (Eds.), The psychology of prejudice: The Ontario Sym- l posium (Vol. 7, pp. 55-76). Hillsdale, NJ: Lawrence Allport, G. W. ( 1958). The nature of prejudice. New York· Erlbau m. l Doubled.1y. Banaji, M. R., and Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic gen- <'Ij Ambady, N., Shih, M., Kirn, A., and Pitti nsky, T. L. (2001). der stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7, 136-141. g I Stereotype susceptibili ty in child ren: Effects of identity Banaji, M. R., Hardin, C., and Rothman, A. J. ( I 993). activation on q uantitative performance. l'>ychological I mplici t stereotyping i n person judgmen t. journal of l Science, 12, 385-390. Personality and Social Psychology, 65, 272-281. i1 Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., and Devi ne, P. G. Banse, R., Seise, J., and Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit atti- ! (2003). Individual ditkrences i n the activation and tudes towards homosexuality: Reliability, validi ty, and 1 conti-ol of atkctive race bias as assessed by startle eye- controllability of the !AT. Zeitschrift fitr Experimentelle bli nk response and sdtrcport. journal of Pernmality Psychologie, 48, 145-160. 1 and Social Psychology, 84, 738-753. Bargh, J. A. ( 1996). Principles of automaticity. In E. T. J Amodio, D. M., Harmon- Jones, E., Devine, P. G., Curti n, Higgi ns and A. Krnglanski ( Eds.), Social psychology: J. J., Hartley, S. L., .ind Covert, A. E. (2004). Neu ral Handbook of basic principles (pp. 169-183). New signals for the detection of u11i ntentional race bias. York: Guilford. l'Jycholo,_qical Science, IS, 88-93. ---. (1999). The cognitive monster: The case agai nst jI Arcuri, L., Castelli, L., Galdi, S., Zozmaister, C., and Ama- the controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In i dori, A. (2008). Predicting the vote: Implicit attitudes S. Chaiken and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories 1 as predictors of the fi.1ture behavior of the decided and in social psychology ( pp. 361-382). New York: Guilford. o undecided voters. Political l'Jycholo"qy, 29, 369-387. Bargh, J. A., and Pr.ltto, F. (1986). Individual construct THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 25

accessibility and perceptual selection. Journal 1if Correll, )., Urland, G. L., and [to, T. A. (2006). Event- Expe1·imental Social Psychology, 49, 1129-1146. rdated potentials and the decision to shoot: The role Baron, A. S., and Banaji, M. R. (2006). The development of of threat perception and cogni tive control. Journal 1if ) implicit attitudes: Evidence of race evaluations from ages Experimental Soci1 l Psycholo._qy, 42, 120-128. 6, 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science, 17, 53-58. Croizet, J ., and Claire, T. ( 1998). Extendi ng the concept BessenoH G. R., and Sherman, J. W. (2000). Au tomatic of stereotype threat to social class: The intellectual and controlled components of prejudice toward fat u nderperformance of students from low socioeco- people: Evaluation versus stereotype activation. Social nomic backgrou nds. Personality and Social Psychology , Cognition, 18, 329-353. Bulletin, 24, 588-594. Bielby, W. T. (2000). Mi nimizing workplace gender and Crosby, F, Bromley, S., and Saxe, L. ( 1980). Recent u nob- raci:il bi:is. Contemporary Sociology, 29, 120-129. trusive studies of Black and White discri mi nation and - Blai r, I. V. (2002 ). The malleability of automatic stereotyp- prejudice: A literatu re review. P.1)'Chol1qical Bulletin, i ng and prejudice. Journal 1if Personality and Social 87, 546-563. Psychology Re1,iew, 6, 242-261. Cu nni ngham, W. A., Joh nson, M. K., Raye, C. L., Gaten by, Blair, I. V., and Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and ]. C., Gore, J . C., and lhnaji, M. R. (2004). Separable controlled processes in stereotype pri ming. Journal 1if neural components i n the processing of black and Personality and Social PJycholngy, 70, 1142-1163. whi te faces. Psychological Science, I S( 12 ), 806-813. Blai r, I. V., Ma, J. E., wd Lenton, A. P. (2001 ). Imagi ni ng doi:l0.111 l /j.0956-7976.2004.00760.x stereotypes away: The moderation of i mplici t stereo- Cunni ngham, W. A., Nezlck, ). B., and Bana ji, M. R. (2004 ). types through mental i magery. Journal of' Personality Implicit and explicit eth nocentrism: Revisiting the ide- and Social Psychology, 81( 5 ), 828-841. doi: 10.1037/ ologies of prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology 0022-3514.81.5.828 Bulletin, 30(10), 1332 -1346. doi: I 0.1 177/014616 Bobo, L. (2001 ). Racial attitudes and relations at the 7204264654 close of the twentieth century. In N. Smelser, W. J. Darley, J. M., and Gross, P. H. (1983). A hypothcsis- Wilson, and F. Mi tchell ( Eds.), America becoming: confirmi ng bias i n labeli ng effects. Journal 1if Person- Racial trends and their consequences ( pp. 262-299). ality and Social Psychology, 44, 20-23. Washington, DC: National Academy Press. Dasgupta, N., and Asga ri, S. (2004 ). Seeing is believing: Bosson, J. K., Swann, W. and Pen nebaker, J. W. (2000). Exposu re to cou nterstereotypic women leaders a nd its Stalking the perfect measu re of scltesteem: The blind effect on automatic gender stereotypi ng. Journal of men and the elephant revisited? Journal 1if Personality Experimental Social P1ycholtqy, 40, 642-658. and Social Psychology, 79, 631-64·3. Dasgu pta, N., and Greenwald, A. G. ( 200 I ). On the mal- Castelli, L., Zogmaistcr, C., and Tomcllcri, S. (2009). leabili ty of automatic attitudes: Combati ng autonMtic : The transmission of racial attitudes within the family. prejudice wi th i mages of ad mi red and disli ked indi- De1,elopmental Psychology, 45, 586-591 . viduals. Journal of Penonality and Social Psychology, f Cheu ng, R. M., Fingerhu t, A., Joh nson, A., Noel, S., 81, 800-814. · Drus, M., and Hardin, C. D. (2011). Religiosity, Dasgu pta, N., and Rivera, L. M. (2008). When social con- heterosexuality, and anti-gay pnjudice: Shared nonns text matters: The infl uence 6f long-term contact and in e JJe1yday social tuning. Unpu blished man uscri pt, short-term exposure to ad mired ou tgrou p members ! Department of Psychology, Brooklyn College, CUNY. on implici t attitudes and beh.ivioral i ntentions. Social Cheung, R. M., and Hardin, C. D. (2010). Costs and Cognition, 26, 54-66. benefits of political ideology: The case of economic De Houwer, J. (2001 ). A structure ,rnd process an,1lysis of self-stereotyping and stereotype threat. Journal of' the IAT. Journal of E.xperimcntal Social Psychology, : Experimental Social Psychology, 46(5), 761-766. 37, 443-451. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.20 I 0.03.012 Devine, P. G. ( J 989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Thei r Chugh, D. (2004). Societal and managerial im plications automatic and controlled com ponents. Journal of of implicit social cognition: Why milliseconds matter. Personality and Social Psycholt{qy, 56, 5-18. Social Justice Research, 17, 203-222. ---. (2005). Prejudice with and wi thou t compunction: Correll, J., Park, B., Judd, C. M., and Wittenbrink, B. (2002). Allport's i n ner conflict revisi ted. J n J. t:. Dovidio, P. The police officer's dilemma: Using ethnicity to dis- Glick, and L. A. Rud man ( Eds.), On the nature of am biguate potentially threatening individ uals. journal prejudice: Fifty years after Allport ( pp. 327- 342). of Personality and Social P.rychology, 83, 1314-1329 . Oxford: Blackwell. . Correll, )., Park, B., Judd, C. M., Witten brink, B., Sadler, Devine, P. G., and Monteith, M. ). (1999). Au tomaticity M. S., and Keesee, T. (2007). Across the thi n bl ue and control in stereotypi ng. l n S. Chai ken and Y. li ne: Police officers and racial bias in the decision to Trope ( Eds.), Dual-process models and themes in social shoot. Journal 1if Perrnnality and Social P.1ychology, and Ct{IJnitiJJe psychology (pp. 339-360). New York: 92, 1006-1023. Guilford Press. 26 • PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Devos, T., and Ma, D. S. (2010). How "American" is Barack C. J. ( 1995). Variability in automatic activation as an Obama? The role of national identity in a historic bid u nobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A bona fide for the White House. Unpublished manuscript, Depart- pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social P.1ychology, ment of Psychology, Universi ty of Chicago. 69, 1013-1027. Dovidio, J. F. (2001 ). On the nature of contemporary Fazio, R. H., and Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures prejudice: The third wave, Journal of Social Issues, 57, in social cognition research: Their meaning and uses. 829-849. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297-327. Dovidio, J. F., Evans, N. and Tyler, R. B. (1986). Racial Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., and stereotypes: The contents of their cognitive represen- Kardes, F. R. ( 1986). On the automatic activation of tations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 22, attitudes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 22-37. 50, 229-238. Dovidio, ]. F., and Gaertner, S. L. (2004). Aversive racism. Fazio, R. H., and Towles-Schwen, T. (1999). The MODE In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Advances in experimental model of attitude-behavior processes. Tn S. Chaiken social p;:ychology (Vol. 36, pp. 1-51). San Diego, CA: and Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual process theories in social Academic Press. psychology (pp. 97-116). New York: Guilford. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., and Gaertner, S. L. (2002). French, R. M., and Cleerernans, A. (2002). Implicit learn- Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interac- ing and consciousness: An empirical, philosophical, tion. Journal of Personality and Social l'sycholoychology, 49, 171-180. ment, 77, 1268-1281. Geller, W. A. (1982). Deadly force: What we know. Jour- ---. (2007). Children and social grou ps: A develop- nal of l'olice Science and Administration, 10, mental analysis of implicit consistency among Hispanic- 151-177. Americans. Self and Identity, 6, 238-255. Glashouwer, K. A., de Jong, P. J., Penninx, B.W.J.H., Kerk- Du raisingam, V., Pidd, K., Roche, A. M., and O'Connor, hof, A.J.F.M., van Dyck, R., and Orme!, J. (2010). J. ( 2006). Stress, satisfaction and retention among Do automatic self associations relate to suicidal idea- alcohol tind other drug workers in Australia. Adelaide, tion? Journal of Psychopathology and Behavioral Australia: National Centre for Ed ucation and Training Assessment, 32, 428--437. doi:J 0.1007/sl 0862-009- on Addiction. 9156-y Eberhardt, J. L., Goff P. A., Purdie, V. J., and Davies, P. G. Gonzales, P. M., Blanton, H., and Williams, K. J. (2002). (2004). Seeing black: Race, crime, and visual process- The effects of stereotype threat and double-minority ing. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, status on the test performance of Latino women. Per- 876-893. sonality and Social P;ychology Bulletin, 28, 659-670. Egloff B., and Schnrnkle, S. C. (2002). Predictive validity Govan, C. L., and Williams, K. D. (2004). Changing the of an I mplicit Association Test for assessing anxiety. affective valence of stimulus items influences the Journal of Personality and Social I»ychology, 83, IAT by re-defining the category labels. Journal of 1441-1455. Personality and Social Psychology, 40, 357-365. Fazio, R. H. (2001 ). On the automatic activation of as- Govorun, 0., and Payne, B. K. (2006). Ego depletion and sociated eval uations: An overview. Cognition and prejudice: Separating au tomatic and controlled com- Emotion, 15, 115-141. ponents. Social Cognition, 24, 111-136. ---. (2003). Variabili ty in the likelihood of automatic Graham, S., and Lowery, B. S. (2004). Priming uncon- attitude activation: Data reanalysis and commentary on scious racial stereotypes about adolescent offenders. Bargh, Chaiken, Govender and Pratto (1992 ). Journal Law and Human Behavior, 28, 483-504. of Personality and Social Psychology, 64, 753-758. Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Ray- Fazio, R. H., Jackson, J. R., Dunton, B. C., and Williams, moml, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., and Banaji, M. R. (2007). THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 27

Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of Higgins, E. T. (1996). Knowledge activ,1tion: Accessibility, thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. applicability, and salience. In E. T. Higgi ns and A. W. Journal of General Internal M edicine, 22, 1231-1238. Kruglanski (Eds.), Social psycholrqy: Handboo/i of basic Greenwald, A. G., and Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social principles (pp. 133-168). New York: Guilford. cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Higgi ns, E. T., Rholes, W. S., and Jones, C. R. ( 1 977). Cate- ; Psychological Review, 102, 4-27. gory accessibility and i mpression formation. Journal of Greenwald, A. G., and Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Experimental Social PsycholrLqy, 13, 141-154. Scientific foundations. California Laiv Re J?iew, 94, Hofoiann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., 945-967. a11d Schmitt, M. (2005 ). A meta-analysis on the cor- ' Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., and Schwartz, J.L.K. relation between the Implici t Association Test and (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit explici t sclf:report measu res. Personality and Social cognition: The Implici t Association Test. Journal of Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369-1385. Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464-1480. Hugen berg, K., and Boden hausen, G. V. (2003). f aci ng n Greenwald, A. G., Poehl man, T. A., Uhl mann, E. L., prejudice: Im plicit prejudice and the perception of and Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using facial threat. Psychological Science, 14, 640-643. the implicit association test: III. Meta-analysis of Jackman, M. (1994). The vel J?etgloPc: Paternalism and predictive validity. journal of Personality and Social conflict ingender, class, and race 1·elations. Berkeley, r. Psychology, 97, 17-41. CA: Universi ty of California Press. Greenwald, A. G., Smith, C. T., Sriram, N., Bar-Anan, Y., Jost, J. T., and Banaji, M. R. ( 1 994). The role of stereo- and Nosek, B. A. (2009). Implicit race attitudes pre- typi ng i n system-justification and the prod uction of •f dicted vote in the 2008 U.S. presidential election. false consciousness. British Journal of Social Psy- j Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy, 9( l ), 241- chology, 33(1), 1-27. doi:lO. J ll ljj.2044-8309.1994 253. doi:lO.ll ll/j.1530-2415.2009.01195.x .tbOl 008.x Gross, E, F., and Hardin, C. D. (2007). Implicit and Jost, J. T., Banaji, M. R., and Nosek, B. A. (2004). A explicit stereotyping of adolescents. Social Justice decade of system justification theory: Accumulated Research, 20, 140-160. evidence of conscious and unconscious bolstering of - Han, H. A., Olson, M. A., and Fazio, R. H. (2006). The the status quo. Political I'

to stereotype threat. Journal 1if' Experimental Social Contextual variations in implicit evahtation. Journal of e,, l\vchology, 43, 825-832. Experimental Psychology: General, 132, 455--469. Kim, D-Y. (2003). Vol u ntary controllability of the Implicit Neely, J. H. ( 1976). Semantic priming and retrieval from b Aswciation Test (!AT). Social Psychology Q;tarterly, lexical memory: Evidence for facilitatory and inhibi- t1 66, 83-96. tory processes. Memory and Cognition, 4, 648-654. e1 Knowles, E. D., Lowery, B. S., and Schaumberg, R. L. ---. ( 1977). Semantic priming and retrieval from . (2010). Racial prejudice predicts opposition to lexical memory: Roles of inhi bitionless spreading p, Ob.rn1a and his health care reform plan. Journal tif' activation and limited-capacity attention. Journal of p Experimental Social Psychology, 46( 2 ), 420-423. Experimental Psycholt{_qy: General, 106, 225-254. l doi: I0.1016/j.jesp.2009.10.01 l Nock, M. K., and Banaji, M. R. (2007). Prediction of Kressin, N. R., and Petersen, L. A. (2001). Racial differ- suicide ideation and attempts among adolescents using il ences i n the use of invasive cardiovascular proced ures: a brief performance-based test. Journal of Consulting Review of the literatu re and prescription for future and Clinical Psychology, 75, 707-715. research. Annual Re JJie w of Internal Medicine, 135, Nock, M. K., Park, J. M., Finn, C. T., Deli berto, T. L., 352-366 Dour, H. J., and Banaji, M. R. (2010). Measming the Lam bert, A. I., Payne, B. K., Ramsey, S., and Shaffer, L. M. suicidal mind. Psycholt{_qical Science, 21( 4 ), 511-517. (2005 ). On the predictive validity of implicit attitude doi:l O.l 177/0956797610364762 measures: The moderating effect of perceived group Nosek, B. A. (2005). Moderators of the relationship be- vari.1bility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, tween implicit and explicit eval uation. Journal of 41, 114-128. Experimental PJychology: General, 134, 565-584. · La Piet-re, R. ( 1934 ). Attitude vs action. Social F1mes, 13, Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., and Greenwald, A. G. 230-237. (2002a). Harvesti ng implicit group attitudes and be- Lee, S., Rogge, R. D., and Reis, H . T. (2010). Assessing liefs from a demonstration website. Group Dynwmics, the seeds of relationship decay. Psychological Science, 6, 101-115. . 1 21(6 ), 857-864. doi:l0.1177/0956797610371342 ---. (2002b). Math = male, me = female, therefore I Levy, B. ( 1996). Improving memory in old age through math "' me. Journal of Personality ,ind Social l'Jy- i m plicit self stereotypi ng. Journal of Personality and chology, 83, 44-59. ': Social Psychology, 71, 1092-1 107. Nosek, M. A. ( l 995 ). Sexual abuse of women with physical Lieberman, M. D. (2000). Intuition: A social cognitive disabilities. In T. N. Monga ( Ed.), Physical medicine t neuroscience Jpproach. Psychological Bulletin, 126, and rehabilitation state of the art reviews: Sexutility

l09-137. and disability (pp. 487-502). Phibdelphia: Hanley I Livi ngston, R. W. (2002). The role of perceived negativity Belfus. ' in the moderation of African Americans' implicit and Olson, M. A., and Fazio, R. H. (2001 ). Implicit attitude explicit racial ,\ttitudcs. Journal if Experimental Social formation through . Hychological Psychology, 38, 405-413. Science, 12, 413--417. Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., and Sinclai r, S. (2001 ). Social ---. (2002). Implicit acq uisition and manifestation of infl uence effects on automatic racial prcjLtdice. Journal classically conditioned attitudes. Social Cognition, 20, of l'ersonality and Social Psychology, 81, 842-855. 89-104. Maison, D., Greenwald, A. G., and Bruin, R. H. (2004). - --. (2003). Relations between implicit measures of Predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test in prejudice; What are we measuri ng? P>ycholttqical studies of brands, consu mer attitudes, and behavior. Science, 14, 636-639. Journal 1if'Consumer Psychology, 14, 405-415. - --. (2004). Reducing the infl uence of extraper- Marsh, K. L., Johnson, B. L, and Scott-Sheldon, L. A. sonal associations on the Implicit Association Test: (2001 ). Heart versus reason i n condom use: Implicit Personalizing the lAT. Journal of Personality and versus explicit attitudinal predictors of sexual behav- Social p,ychology, 86, 653-667. ior. Zeitschrift f11r Experirnentelle Psychologie, 48, - --. (2006). Reduci ng automatically activated racial 161-175. prejudice through implicit evaluative condition- McCon nell, A. R., and Liebold, ). M. (2002). Relations i ng. Personality and Social Psycholitqy Bulletin, 32, bctw<.:en the I mplicit Association Test, explicit racial 421--433. attitudes, and discrimi natory behavior. Journal of Orfield, G. (2001). Schools more separate: Consequences of Experimental Social Piychology, 37, 435-442. 1i decade 1if' resegr(qation. Cambridge, MA: H,uvard Meyer, D. E., and Schvaneveldt, R. W. ( 1971). Facilitation University. in recognizing pai rs of words: Evidence of a de- Payne, B. K. (2001 ). Prejudice and perception: The role of pendence between retrieval operations. Journal 1if' automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a Experimental Psychology, 90, 227-234. weapon. Journal of Penontility and Social p, vchol1{_qy, Mitchell, j. A., Nosek, B. A., and Banaji, M. R. ( 2003). 81, 181-192. THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 29

Payne, B. K., Shimizu, Y., and Jacoby, L. L. (2005 ). Mental Richeson, J. A., and Nussbau m, R. ). (2004). The i mpact control and visual illusions: Toward explaining race- of mu l ticul turalism versus color-bli nd ness on racial · biased weapon identifications. Journal of Experimen- bias. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(3), tal Social Psychology, 41, 36-47. 417-423. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2003.09.002 ' Penner, L. A., Dovidio, J. F., West, T. V., Gaertner, S. L., Richeson, ). A., and Shelton, J. N. (2005). Thi n slices of I Albrecht, T. L., Dailey, R. K., and Markova, T. (2010). racial bias. journal of NonJJerbal Bchavim-, 29, 75-86. Aversive racism and medical i nteractions with Black Richeson, ). A., and Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do i nterra- patients: A field study. Journal of Experimental Social cial i nteractions i mpair executive fimction1 A resou rce Psychology, 46( 2), 436-440. doi: 10.1016/j.jesp.2009 depletion accou nt. Journal of Personality and Social .11.004 Psycholrl,!Jy, 88, 934-947. Perd ue, C. W., and Gu rtman, M. B. ( 1990). Evidence for Roccato, M., and Zogmaister, C. (2010). Predicti ng the the automaticity of ageism. Journal of Experimental vote through implici t a nd explici t attitudes: A field Social Psychology, 26, 199-216. research. Political Ps)'chology, 31, 249-274. Perugini, M. (2005). Predictive models of implicit and Rooth, D-0. (2010). Automatic associ.1tions and dis- explici t atti tudes. British Journal of Social Psychology, cri mi nation in hi ring: Real world evidence. Labour 44, 29-45. Economics, 17(3), 523-534. Perugini, M. O'Gorman, R., and Prestwich, A. (2007). An Ross, L., and Nisbett, R. E. (1991 ). The person and the ontological test of the !AT: Seit:activation can increase situation: PerspectiJJcs of social psychology. New York: predictive validity. Experimental Psychology, 54, l 34--l 47. McGraw-Hill. : Petersen, L. A., Wrigh t, S. M., Peterson, E. D., and Daley, Rudman, L. A., and Ashmore, R. D. (2007). Discri mi na- . J. (2002). Impact of race on cardiac care and out- tion and the Implici t Association Test. Group Processes comes i n veterans with acute myocardial infarction. and Intergroup Relations, 10, 359-372. ; Medical Care, 40, 186-196. Rudman, L. A., Ashmore, R. D., and Gary, M. L. (2001 ). Phelps, E. A., O'Con ner, K. J., Cu nningham, W. A., 'Unlearning' automatic biases: The malleability ofim- Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., and plici t stereotypes and prejudice. journal ofTersonality Banaji, M. R. (2000). Performance on i ndi rect mea- and Social Psycholo'-qy, 81, 856-868. sures of race ev,1luation predicts amygdala activation. Rud man, L. A., and Borgida, E. ( 1995). The afterglow of Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 1-10. construct accessi bili ty: The behavioral conseq uences Plant, E. A., and Pcruche, B. M. (2005). The conseq uences of priming men to view women as sexu.11 objects. · of race for police officers' responses to cri minal sus- fottrnal of Experimental Social PsycholrLq.r, 31, pects. Psychological Science, 16, 180-183. 493-517. Plant, E. A., Peruche, B. M., and Butz, D. A. (2005). Rudman, L. A., Fei n berg, J. M., and Fairchild, K. (2002 ). Eliminating au tomatic racial bias: Maki ng race non- Mi nority members' i mplicit attitudes: l ngrou p bias diagnostic for responses to criminal suspects. Journal as a fu nction of ingrou p status. Social Co,1p1ition, 20, of Experimental Social Psychology, 41, 141-156. 294-320. Pletcher M. J., Kertesz, S. G., Kohn, M.A., and Gonzales, R. Rud man, L. A., and Glick, P. (2001 ). Prescriptive gender (2008). Trends in opioid prescri bi ng by race/ethnicity stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. for patients seeking care in US emergency depart- Journal rif' Social Issues, 57, 743-762. ments. Journtil of the American Medical Association, Rud man, L. A. and Goodwi n, S. A. (2004 ). Gender di f- 299, 70-78. ferences in automatic i ngroup bias: Why do women Putnam, R. D. (2007). E Pluribus Unum: Diversi ty and like women more than men like men? Journal of commu nity in the twenty-first century, The 2006 Personality and Social PS)'CholrLtJY , 87, 494-509. Johan Skyttc Prize Lecture. Scandinavian Political Rud man, L. A., and Heppen, J. (2003). Im plicit romantic Studies, 30, 137-174. fantasies and women's i nterest i n personal power: A Ranganath, K. A., Smith, C. T., and Nosek, B. A. (2008). glass slipper effect? Perrnnality and Social Psychology Distinguishing automatic and controlled components of Bulletin, 29, 1 357-1370. attitudes from direct and indirect measurement. Journal Rudman, L. A., and Lee, M. R. (2002). Implicit and of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(2 ), 386-396. explicit consequences of exposu re to violent and mi- Ratcliff; R., and McKoon, G. ( 1988). A retrieval theory of sogynous rap m usic. G'nn.tp Processes and lnte1qn111p priming in memory. Psychological ReJJiew, 95, 385-408. Relations, S, 133-150. ---. (1994). Retrieving information from memory: Rutland, A., Cameron, L., Bennett, L., and Ferrell, ). (2005). Spreading activation theories versus compou nd cue Interracial contact and racial constancy: A m ulti -site theories. Psychological Review, JOI , 177-184. study of racial intergrou p bias in 3-S year old Anglo- Richeson, J. A., and Ambady, N. (2003). Effects of situ- British children. journal of Applied /)c pef opmcntal ational power on automatic racial prejudice. journal of Psychology, 26(6), 699-713. doi:l 0.1016/j.appdcv Experimental Social Psychology, 39, 177-183. .2005 .08 .005 30 • PREJUDICE AND DISCRIMINATION

Sagar, H. A., and Schofield, J. W. (1980). Racial and be- persons: Some determi nants and implications. Journal havioral cnes in black and white children's perceptions of Personality and Social Psychology, 38, 841-856. I of ambiguously aggressive acts. Journal of Pers1mality Steele, C. M., and Aronson, J. (1995). Stereotype threat L and Social Psycholo._qy, 39, 590-598. and the i ntellectual test performance of African Ameri- Sears, D. 0., and Henry, P. J. (2005). Over thirty years later: cans. journal of Personality and Social l'Jychology, 69, A contemporary look at symbolic racism. In M. Zanna 797-811. Steffens, M. C. (2004). ls the Implicit Association Test im- i (Ed.), Advances in experimental social psychology I (Vol. 37, pp. 95-150). San Diego, CA: Academic Press. mune to faking? Experimental Psychology, 51, 165-179. b Sekaquaptewa, D., Espinoza, P., Thompson, M., Vargas, P., Swanson, J. E., Rudman, L. A., and Greenwald, A. G. and von Hippcl, W. (2003). Stereotypic explanatory (2001 ). Using the Implicit Association Test to inves- bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimi- tigate attitude-behavior consistency for stigmatized rs nation. Jou1·nal of' Experimental Social Piychology, behavior. Cognition and Emotion, 15, 207-230. 39(1), 75-82. doi:l 0.10l 6/S0022-1031(02)00512-7 Sylvestre, D. L., Litwin, A. H., Clements, B. J., and Sherman, S. J., Presson, C. J., Chassin, L., Rose, J. S., and Gourevitch, M. N. (2005). The impact of barriers to ii Koch, K. (2002). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward hepatitis C virus treatment ii recovering heroin users tej cigarette smoking: The effects of context and motiva- mai ntained on methadone. Journal of Substance tion. Journ1il of Social and Clinical Psychology, 22, Abuse Treatment, 29, 159-165. 13-39. Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Cairns, E., Tausch, N., Maio, G., Shih, M., Am bady, N., Richeson, J. A., Fujita, K., and and Kenworthy, J. B. (2007). The impact of inter- Gr.1y, H. (2002 ). Stereotype performance boosts: The group emotions on forgiveness in Northern Ireland. impact of self rekvance and the manner of stereo- Group Processes and Intergroup Relations, 10, 119-135. type activation. Journal of Personality and Social Tam, T., Hewstone, M., Harwood, J., Voci, A., and P;ycholt(_qy, 83, 638-647. Kenworthy, J. (2006 ). Intergroup contact and Shih, M., Pittinsky, T. L., and Ambady, N. (1999). Stereo- grandparent-grandchild communication: The effects type susceptibility: Identity salience and shifts in q uan- of self disclosure on implicit and explicit biases titative performance. Psychological Science, 10, 81-84. agai nst older people. Group Processes and Intergroup Shook, N. J., and Fazio, R. H. (2007). The effect of' inter- Relations, 9, 413--430. racial versus s;ime-race roommate relationships on Teachman, B. A, Marker, C. D., and Smith-Janik, S. B. (2008). attitudes. Poster presented at the Ann ual Conference Automatic associations and panic disorder: Trajectories for the Society for Psychology and Social Psychology, of change over the course of treatment. jourrrnl of Memphis, TN. Consulting and Clinical P;ychology, 76(6), 988-1002. Sinclair, S., Hardin, C. D., and Lowery, B. S. (2006). Self: Teachman, B. A., Smith-Janik, S. B., and Saporito, J. (2007). stereotyping in the context of m ultiple social identi- Information processing biases and panic disorder: ties. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90, Relationships among cognitive and symptom mea- 529-542. sures. Behaviour Research and Therapy, 45, 1791-1811. Sinclair, S., Lowery, B. S., and Dunn, E. (2005). The Teachman, B. A., and Woody, S. R. (2003). Automatic rd.itionship between parental racial attitudes and processing in spider phobia: I mplicit fear associations children's implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental over the course of treatment. Journal of Abnormal Social Psychology, 14, 283-289. Psychology, 112, 100-109. Sinclair, S., Lowery, B. S., Hardin, C. D., and Colangelo, Tetlock, P. E., and Mitchell, G. (in press). Unconscious A. (2005 ). Social tu ni ng of automatic racial attitudes: prejudice and accountability systems: What must The role of affiliative motivation. Journal of Person- organizations do to check implicit bias? Research in ality and Social Psychology, 89, 583-592. Organizational Behavior. Skinner, B. F. ( l 953). Science and human behaJ1ior. New Turner, R. N., Hewstone, M., and Voci, A. (2007). Re- York: Macmillan. duci ng explicit and implicit outgroup prejudice via Sniderman, P. M., and Carmines, E. G. (1997). Reaching be- diren and extended contact: The mediating role of yond race. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press. self-disclosure and intergroup anxiety. journal of Spalding, L. R., and Hardin, C. D. (1999). Unconscious Personality and Social Psychology, 93(3), 369-388. unease and selt handicapping: Behavioral consequences doi:l0.1037/0022-3514.93.3.369 of individ ual differences in implici t and explicit self- U. S. Department ofJustice. (2001 ). Policirtq and homi- esteem. Psychological Science, 10, 535-539. cide, 1976-98: Justifiable homicide by police, police of- Spencer, S. )., Steele, C. M., and Quin n, D. M. (1999). ficers murdered byfelons ( NCJ 180987). Washington, Stereotype threat and women's math performance. DC: Bu reau of J ustice Statistics. Journal of Expn·imental Social Psychology, 35, 4-28. van Breukelen, W., van der List, R., and Steensma, H. Srull, T. K., and Wyer, R. S. (1979). The role of category (2004). Vol untary employee turnover: Combining accessibility in the interpretation of information about variables from the "traditional" turnover literature THE NATURE OF IMPLICIT PREJUDICE • 31

with the theory of planned behavior. Journal of Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., and Park, B. (2001 ). Spon- Organizational Behavior, 25, 893-914. taneous prejudice in context: Variabili ty in automati- van Hippe!, W., Brener, L., and van Hippe!, C. (2008). cally activated attitudes. Journal of Personality and fr Implicit prejudice toward injecting d rug users predicts Social P.1ychology, 81(5), 815-827. doi:l 0.1037/0022- intentions to change jobs among drug and alcohol 3514.81.5.815 nurses. Psychological Science, 19, 7-11. Wittenbrink, 13., and Schwarz, N. ( Eds.) (2007). Implicit Wegener, D. T., and Petty, R. E. (1997). The flexible cor- measures of attitudes. New York: Guilford. rection model: The role of naive theories of bias in Word, C. 0., Zanna, M. P., and Cooper, J. (1974). The l, bias correction. In M. P. Zanna (Ed.), Adiiances in nonverbal mediation of selHi.ilfilling prophecies in experimental social psychology (Vol. 29, pp. 141-208). i nterracial interaction. Journ1il of Experimental Social 'g San Diego, CA: Academic Press. Psychology, 10, 109-120. 7 Wei rs, R. W., Wocrden, N. V., Smu lders, F. T., and de Jong Wraga, M., Helt, M., Jacobs, E., and Sullivan, K. (2007) , P. T. (2002 ). Implicit and explicit alcohol-related Neu ral basis of stereotype-i nd uced shifrs in women's · cognitions in heavy and light drin kers. Journal of mental rotation performance. Social CognitiJJe and ie Abnormal Psychology, 111, 648-658. Affective Neuroscience, 2, 12-19. Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., and Park, B. ( 1997). Ziegert, J. C., and Hanges, P. J. (2005 ). Employment Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and discrimination: The role of implicit attitudes, motiva- , its relationship to question naire measures. Journal of tion, and a cli mate for racial bias. Journal of Applied Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 262-274. Psychology, 90, 553 -562. ·n

,

f'

' r,

: ' /;

·u

\ 1 g

•t )

ib cr