March 11, 2019

Glossary

Association:As used in implicit bias literature, anassociation is the degree to which one concept is connected to, or associated with, another concept.”[1]

Attitudes: Evaluative feelings[2]; a "predisposition to treat entities with favor or disfavor"[3]; can be implicit or explicit[4]; when negative, referred to as prejudice.[5]

Backlash effects: social and economic responses or reprisals for behaving in a way counter to stereotypical behavior.[6]

Behavioral realism: Methodology that considers people’s actual behavior (whether from implicit or explicit bias)[7]

Bias: The attribution of negative traits on the basis of race or other group characteristics.[8] Implicit biases are based in implicit attitudes and stereotypes and may differ from explicit self-reporting of attitudes and stereotypes.[9] Like attitudes and stereotypes, biases can be favorable or unfavorable.[10]

Confirmation effect: Behavioral or cognitive situation where perceivers “simply selectively interpret, attribute, or recall aspects of the target person's actions in ways that are consistent with their expectations.” Because of this selectivity, different perceivers, with different prior expectations may view precisely the same action or sequence of events and see or conclude differently.[11]

Compensating:[12] Methods that seek to address unavoidable bias ahead of time. For example, providing prosecutors full information and records before they make their charging decisions or providing a process with strict internal guidelines[13] or outside perspective.[14]

Cognitive Reflection Test [CRT]:[15] A three question test designed to check on decision making processes and distinguish between intuitive and deliberative approaches. The first question: A bat and a ball cost $1.10 in total. The bat costs $1.00 more than the bat. How much does the ball cost in cents? Theintuitive answer is 10¢, but that would make the total $1.20, 10¢ for the ball, plus $1.10 for the bat. The deliberate (and correct) answer is 5¢, the ball costs 5¢, the bat costs $1.05 for a total of $1.10.[16]

Culture:interaction between “shared schematic representations [shared by individuals and groups]” and the world generally[17]

Cultural competence: When individuals use awareness, knowledge, and understanding in order to value cultural diversity, and promote fairness, justice, and community confidence. In an organizational or systemic context, cultural competency can be understood as “managing diversity in ways that create a climate in which the potential advantages of diversity for organizational or group performance are maximized while the potential disadvantages are minimized.”[18]

Cultural groups: Groups of people who consciously or unconsciously share identifiable values, norms, symbols, and some ways of living that are repeated and transmitted from one generation to another.[19]

Culture: A community’s shared set of norms, practices, beliefs, values, traditions, customs, history, and means of expression that affect (among other things) how we analyze, judge, and interpret information, behavior, and perceptions about behavior.[20]

Debiasing: Methods or approaches designed to overcome implicit bias.

Deliberative decision making: Decision making using "effort, motivation, concentration, and the execution of learned rules.“ In short, these processes are ‘deliberate, rule-governed, effortful, and slow.’”; sometimes described as System 2 thinking. [21]

Explicit biases: Biases that are directly expressed or publicly stated or demonstrated,[22] often measured by self-reporting, e.g., “I believe homosexuality is wrong.”[23] A preference (positive or negative) for a group based on stereotype.

Fair measures: A term coinedfor use instead of affirmative action. "’Fair’ connotes the moral intuition that being fair involves an absence of unwarranted discrimination, by which we mean unjustified social category-contingent behavior. The term also connotes accuracy in assessment. ‘Measure’ has a double meaning as well: measurement and an intervention intentionally taken to solve a problem.”[24] Also the title of a report on this subject by the American Bar Association Commission on Women in the Profession.[25]

Grutter v. Bollinger: Decision of the United States Supreme Court upholding the University of Michigan Law School’s narrowly tailored consideration of race in its admissions policy as offering a compelling interest in the educational benefits to be obtained from a diverse student body.[26]

Heuristics: A method ofdiscovering or learning something for oneself,[27] typically used to mean identifying a solution rapidly; in psychology, a kind of mental shortcut.[28]

Hindsight bias: Bias whereoutcome knowledge affects judgment. “The well-documented tendency to overestimate the predictability of past events… from an intuitive sense that the outcome that actually happened must have been inevitable. People allow their knowledge to influence their sense of what would have been predictable.”[29] Hindsight bias appears to be particularly difficult to overcome.[30]

Implicit Association Test IAT: Computer-based test that involves sorting by categories to measure attitudes and biases.[31] The IAT works by measuring relative response time and typically involves two social and two evaluative categories, e.g., White/Black and pleasant/unpleasant. The logic is that closely associated categories are easier and quicker to sort together, so faster reaction times show implicit connections or biases.[32]

Implicit bias: A preference (positive or negative) for a group based on a stereotype or attitude we hold that operates outside of human awareness and can be understood as a lens through which a person views the world that automatically filters how a person takes in and acts in regard to information.[33] Implicit biases are usually measured indirectly, often using reaction times.[34]

Implicit social cognition:[35] Schemas operating without conscious control regarding human interaction to guide the way a person thinks about social categories.[36] Social cognitionsinclude stereotypes and attitudes.[37] For example, most white Americans will associate women with family as compared to careers; similarly most white Americans will associate violence with African Americans as compared to white Americans.[38] Implicit social cognition “often conflicts with conscious attitudes, endorsed beliefs, and intentional behavior,” and we may well be unaware, or wrong, about the source of our social cognitions.[39]

Inattentional blindness: Inability to see something because of attention to another thing and lack of attention to an unexpected object; made famous by Daniel Simon’s Invisible Gorilla test.[40] Expanding from their original research, these psychologists discuss “six everyday illusions that profoundly influence our lives: the illusions of attention, memory, confidence, knowledge, cause and potential.”[41] All are likely to have significance in addressing implicit bias.

Ingroup bias: Bias or favoritism for the group to which a person belongs[42]

Insulation: A response to bias, a method of debiasing that separates action from bias; affirmative action policies are an example.[43]

Intuitive decision making:(cf. Deliberative): Decisions based on "ability to understand something immediately, without the need for conscious reasoning.”[44]

Intuitive-Override Model of Judging: A description of the way judges make decisions developed by Chris Guthrie, Jeff Rachlinski, and Andrew Wistrich, which involves both intuitive and deliberative thinking where “judges initially make intuitive or System 1 judgments - which are effortless, fast, and often accurate - that they might override with deliberative or System 2 processes - which are more time and labor intensive. . . .”[45]

Malleability: Subject to influence.[46] Implicit biases are malleable and can be changed.[47]

Micro-affirmations: Small messages that “convey inclusion, respect, trust, and genuine willingness to see others succeed.” Micro-affirmations may lead to a more productive and efficient work environment where all members feel valued and enjoy work.[48]

Micro-inequities:[49] Small messages where individuals are either singled out, overlooked, ignored, or otherwise discounted based on an unchangeable characteristic such as race or gender. A micro-inequity usually takes the form of a slight difference of language, gesture, treatment, or even tone of voice. Micro-inequities are often subconsciously given but can have a huge impact on a work environment or social structure.[50]

Micro-messages: Small messages including affirmations, inequities, and aggressions, “sometimes unspoken, and often unconscious messages that are constantly sent and received that can have a powerful impact on our interactions with others.”[51]

Outcome bias: “the tendency to base assessments of a decision's quality on its consequences.”[52]

Predictive validity: Correlated ability to predict behavioral results.[53] The predictive validity of the IAT in terms of predicting explicit behavior is increasingly supported in the literature, but subject to some disagreement literature.[54]

Priming: When one stimulus prompts another concept being brought to mind.[55]

Role Schema: Schemas based on a professional role, e.g., a lawyer, professor, or parent.[56]

Schema: Mental maps or constructs that routinely organize specific or individual pieces of information into larger, broader categories with little or no conscious thought.[57] Schemas include from the viewpoint of the perceiver, a concept about the features of an object, individual, event, group, etc. and the relationship of those features.Schemas may be accurate or inaccurate; they may be positive, negative, or neutral.[58]

Schema interaction (also schema clashes): Situations where more than one schema may be in play, for example, a female professor or a male professor, or a white female professor or a male Puerto Rican professor.

Stereotype: Trait associated with a social category,[59] a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing).[60] Stereotypes can be favorable or unfavorable, implicitly or explicitly held.[61]

Stereotype threat: The “threat of being viewed through the lens of a negative stereotype, or the fear of doing something that would inadvertently confirm that stereotype.”[62] Situation where members of a group stereotyped for a certain attribute or ability feel threatened by the stereotype to the point where they perform poorly when they are reminded of that attribute and the stereotype is implicated.[63] For example, when women are told they are taking a difficult math test, the stereotype that women are not good in math may be triggered, negatively impacting their performance; when the same women are told that this is a test that women typically do well on, the results are much higher.[64] Stereotype threat operates where the matter at hand is important to those involved.[65]

Stroop Task:This is a test of theattentional effort needed to ignore written words and focus on color. “If a word is printed or displayed in a color different from the color it actually names; for example, if the word ‘green’ is written in blue ink (as shown in the figure to the right) we will say the word ‘green’ more readily than we can name the color in which it is displayed, which in this case is ‘blue.’ The cognitive mechanism involved in this task is called directed attention, you have to manage your attention, inhibit, or stop one response in order to say or do something else.[66]

System 1 / System 2 thinking: System 1, quick, intuitive thinking; System 2, deliberative thinking. Professor Guthrie and his colleagues offer this comparative chart on two kinds of thinking:[67]

Characteristic

System 1

System 2

 

(Intuitive)

(Deliberative)

 

 

 

Cognitive Style

Heuristic

Systematic

Cognitive Awareness

Low

High

Conscious Control

Low

High

Automaticity

High

Low

Speed

Fast

Slow

Reliability

Low

High

Effort

Low

High

Emotional Valence

High

Low


[1] FAQs, Project Implicit, Question 23, https://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/background/faqs.html#faq2(last visited July 1, 2011) (hereinafter “IAT FAQs”).

[2] Jerry Kang, Nat'l Ct. State CourtsImplicit Bias,A Primer (2009) (hereinafter “Kang Primer”), available at http://wp.jerrykang.net.s110363.gridserver.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/kang-Implicit-Bias-Kang Primer-for-courts-09.pdf; IAT FAQs, supra note 1.

[3] Mahzarin R. Banaji & Larisa Heiphetz, Attitudes in Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert & Gardner Lindzey, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology 353 (5th ed. 2010).

[4] Anthony G. Greenwald & Linda Hamilton Krieger, Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations, 94Calif. L. Rev. 945, 948 (2006).

[5] Fiske, supra note 3, at 1108 (“[b]ias comes in many forms, reflecting negative attitudes (prejudice), beliefs (stereotypes), and actions (discrimination)). The Harvard Project Implicit website defines and illustrates implicit and explicit attitudes: “What is an 'implicit' attitude? Answer: An attitude is a positive or negative evaluation of some object. An implicit attitude is an attitude that can rub off on associated objects. Example: The company for which your spouse works is attacked in a legal suit. An inclination to believe that the company is guiltless could be a reflection of your positive attitude toward your spouse -- your positive attitude toward the company provides an indirect (implicit) indicator of the positive attitude toward your spouse. (If you believe the company guilty, the marriage may be in difficulty!) The word 'implicit' is used because these powerful attitudes are sometimes hidden from public view, and even from conscious awareness.” What are 'explicit' attitudes or beliefs? “Answer: Explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated. For example, the question asking for your liking for particular groups or science or self before you take the IAT is an example of your explicit or consciously accessible attitude. The standard procedure for obtaining such direct expressions is to ask people to report or describe them (a procedure known as 'self-report' when used in research). For example, if you've ever responded to opinion surveys, the responses you typically gave there would be considered explicit attitudes or beliefs.” IAT FAQs, supra note 1, at Questions 19, 21.

[6] Laurie A. Rudman, To Be or Not to Be (Self-Promoting), The Consequences of Counterstereotypical Impression Management, in Roderich M. Kramer & Margaret A. Neale, eds. Power and Influence in Organizations 290 (1998).

[7] See Jerry Kang & Kristine Lane, Seeing Through Colorblindness: Implicit Bias and the Law, 58 UCLA L. Rev. 465 (2010) (summarizing empirical evidence on “colorblindness” and calling on the law to take a "behavioral realist" account of these findings); Jerry Kang & Mahzarin R. Banaji, Fair Measures: A Behavioral Realist Revision of “Affirmative Action,” 94 Calif. L. Rev. 1063, 1065 (2006).

[8] Christine Jolls, Antidiscrimination Law's Effects on Implicit Bias, Yale L. Sch., Pub. L. Working Paper No. 148, 2005), available at http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=959228##.

[9] Greenwald & Krieger, supra note 4, at 951; Jerry Kang, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Kumar Yogeeswaran & Gary Blasi. Are Ideal Litigators White? Measuring the Myth of Colorblindness, 7J. Empirical Legal Studies 886 (2010).

[10] Greenwald & Krieger, supra note 4, at 951.

[11] John M. Darley & Paget H. Gross, A Hypothesis-Confirming Bias in Labeling Effects, 44 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 20 (1983).

[12] Also see debiasing infra.

[13] Andrew E. Taslitz, Eyewitness Identification, Democratic Deliberation, and the Politics of Science, 4 Cardozo J. Pub. L. Pol’y & Ethics 271 (2006); Andrew E. Taslitz, Judging Jena’s D.A.: The Prosecutor and Racial Esteem, 44 Harv. C.R.–CC.L. L. Rev. 393 (2009). See also Eric Luis Uhlmann & Geoffrey L. Cohen, Constructed Criteria: Redefining Merit to Justify Discrimination, 16 Psychol. Sci. 474 (2005) (discussing employment review with predetermined criteria as less gender-biased, police chief example).

[14] Kerala Thie Cowart, Symposium Response on Responsible Prosecutorial Discretion, 44 Harvard C. R.-C. L. L. Rev. 597, 605 (2009). See also, e.g., Marc L. Miller & Ronald F. Wright, The Black Box, 94 Iowa L. Rev. 125 (2008) (discussing internal controls re: prosecutorial discretion and race); Claudia Goldin & Cecilia Rouse, Orchestrating Impartiality: The Impact of "Blind" Auditions on Female Musicians, 90 Am. Econ. Rev. 715 (2000), (discussing how organizational change to blind-screened audition format increases women hired in orchestras).

[15] Shane Frederick, Cognitive Reflection and Decision Making, 19 J. Ec. Perspectives 25 (2005), available at http://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/089533005775196732.

[16] The other two questions are similar in offering a quick but likely incorrect answer and a correct answer reached with more thought and perhaps suppression of the impulsive answer: “(2) If it takes 5 machines 5 minutes to make 5 widgets, how long would it take 100 machines to make 100 widgets? _____ minutes. (3) In a lake, there is a patch of lily pads. Every day, the patch doubles in size. If it takes 48 days for the patch to cover the entire lake, how long would it take for the patch to cover half of the lake? _____ days.” Id. at 27-28. Professor Guthrie and his colleagues explain: “For the second question, the answer that immediately jumps to mind is 100 minutes. Though intuitive, this answer is also wrong. If five machines make five widgets in five minutes, then each machine makes one widget in that five-minute time period. Thus, it would take only five minutes for 100 machines to produce 100 widgets, just as 200 machines would make 200 widgets during that same period. The third question immediately invites an answer of twenty-four days, which is wrong. 58 The correct answer - obvious upon reflection - is forty-seven days. If the patch of lily pads doubles each day and covers the entire lake on the forty-eighth day, it must cover half the lake the day before.” Guthrie, supra note 29, at 11. See also Elke U. Weber & Eric J. Johnson, Mindful Judgment and Decision Making, 60 Ann. Rev. Psychology (2009) (discussing process of decision making), available at https://vlab2.gsb.columbia.edu/decisionsciences.columbia.edu/uploads/File/Articles/MindfulJudgment.PDF.

[17] Hana Shepherd, The Cultural Context of Cognition: What the Implicit Association Test Tells Us About How Culture Works,26 Sociological Forum 121 (2011).

[18] Lauren N. Nile, Developing Diversity Training for the Workplace: A Guide for Trainers 5-17, NMCI Publications (9th ed. 2008), quoted in American Bar Association, Criminal Justice Section et al., Building Community Trust: Improving Cross-cultural Communication in the Criminal Justice System[hereinafter “Building Trust”], Unit 2, http://www.americanbar.org/groups/criminal_justice/pages/buildingcommunity.html:(last visited July 1, 2011). See alsoSylvia Stevens, Cultural Competency: Is There an Ethical Duty, Oregon State Bar, http://www.osbar.org/publications/bulletin/09jan/barcounsel.html(last visited July 1, 2011).

[19] Building Trust, supra note 18, at Unit 2.

[20] Id.; Shepherd, supra note 17; Merlin Donald, How Culture and Brain Mechanisms Interact in Decision Making, in Christoph Engel & Wolf Singer, eds., Better than Conscious? Decision Making, the Human Mind, and Implications for Institutions 191, (2008) (linking culture to decision making).

[21] Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski & Andrew J. Wistrich, The "Hidden Judiciary": An Empirical Examination of Executive Branch Justice, 58 Duke L.J. 1477, 1487 (2009), citing Frederick, supra note 16.

[22] IAT, Project Implicit: IAT, Implicit.Harvard.edu; Homehttps://implicit.harvard.edu/implicit/demo/(last visited April 28, 2011). Also see explicit, infra—explicit attitudes and beliefs are ones that are directly expressed or publicly stated.

[23] Anthony G. Greenwald, Ph.D., Professor, University of Washington, Department of Psychology, Implicit Association Test (IAT) in Legal Settings, Presentation, AALS Annual Meeting (Jan. 6 2011) (hereinafter “Greenwald AALS”).

[24] Kang & Banaji, supra note 7, at 1067.

[25] American Bar Association, ABA Commission on Women in the Profession,A Current Glance at Women in the Law 2011 (updated January, 2011), http://www.americanbar.org/content/dam/aba/uncategorized/2011/cwp_current_glance_statistics_2011.authcheckdam.pdf(last visited July 1, 2011).

[26] Grutter v. Bollinger, 539 U.S. 306 (2003).

[27] Heuristics definition, Online Oxford English Dictionary(last visited July 1, 2011).

[28] Christine Jolls & Cass R. Sunstein, The Law of Implicit Bias, 94 Calif. L. Rev. 969, 976 (2006).

[29] Chris Guthrie, Jeffrey J. Rachlinski & Andrew J. Wistrich, Blinking on the Bench: How Judges Decide Cases, 93 Cornell L. Rev. 1, 24 (2007) citing. Scott A. Hawkins & Reid Hastie, Hindsight: Biased Judgments of Past Events After the Outcomes Are Known, 107 Psychol. Bull. 311, 312-13 (1990) and Baruch Fischhoff, Hindsight Foresight: The Effect of Outcome Knowledge on Judgment Under Uncertainty, 1 J. Experimental Psychol., Hum. Perception & Performance 288, 288-99 (1975) (documenting the effects of the hindsight bias). See also Alison C. Smith & Edith Greene, Conduct and Its Consequences: Attempts at Debiasing Jury Judgments, 29 Law and Human Behavior505 (2005), available at http://0-www.jstor.org.cardcatalog.law.unh.edu/stable/pdfplus/4499437.pdf?acceptTC=true. Professor Rachlinski adds: “It is important to distinguish between the hindsight bias and the more ordinary process of learning from experience. In mostcircumstances, learning an outcome should cause people to update their estimates of an event's likelihood. If Fischhoff [original researcher] had asked his subjects to estimate the probabilities of the possible outcomes … it would have been appropriate for the subjects to suppose that history might repeat itself. Fischhoff did not ask his subjects to predict a future event, however; he asked them to judge the predictability of past events as if they were ignorant of the known outcome. His subjects behaved as if they were supposed to learn from the outcome, even though that was not their chore.” Jeffrey J. Rachlinski, A Positive Psychological Theory of Judging in Hindsight, 65 U. Chi. L. Rev. 571, 577-78 (1998).

[30] Rachlinski, supra note 29, at 587-88 (1998).

[31] Kang Primer, supra note2.

[32] General Information, Project Implicit http://www.projectimplicit.net/generalinfo.php(last visited July 1, 2011);Kang Primer, supra note2; Greenwald & Krieger, supra note 4, at 952-53 (2006); Shepherd, supra note 17; Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Assistant Professor of Psychology. Department of Psychology, Indiana University–Purdue University Indianapolis, Presentation, The Implicit Association Test: Its Uses (and Potential Misuses) in Organizations, (undated) www.drtci.org/public/drci_iat_handouts.ppt (last visited July 1, 2011).

[33] Building Trust, supra note 18, at Unit 3. Social psychologists define these “less conscious and less controlled” attitudes as “introspectively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members of a social category.” Banaji & Heiphetz, supra note 3, at 357.

[34] Greenwald AALS, supra note 23.

[35] Also sometimes referred to as unconscious or automatic. Harvard’s Project Implicit explains: “The terms ‘unconscious’ ‘automatic’ and ‘implicit’ are closely related. They all refer to mental associations that are so well-established as to operate without awareness, or without intention, or without control.” FAQs IAT, supra note 1, at Question 22.

[36] See, e.g., Kang & Banaji, supra note 7, at 1075.

[37] Building Trust, supra note 18, at Unit 3.

[38] IAT, supra note 22. These implicit social cognitions are now thought to flow in “predictable directions in favor of groups higher on the social hierarchy.” Kang & Dasgupta, supra note 9. See also Justin D. Levinson & Danielle Young, Implicit Gender Bias in the Legal Profession: An Empirical Study, 18 Duke J. Gender L. & Pol'y 1 (2010) (discussing persistent association of judges with men, not women, and women with home and family).

[39] Kang & Banaji, supra note 7, at 1064.

[40] Christopher Chabris & Daniel Simons, the invisible gorilla and Other Ways Our Intuitions Deceive Us (2010); sometimes referred to as “selective attention.” Take the test at http://viscog.beckman.illinois.edu/flashmovie/15.php(last visited July 1, 2011). About half of the viewers fail to see the distraction. Chabris & Simons at 6.

[41] Chabris & Simons, supra note 40.

[42] Greenwald & Krieger, supra note 4, at 951. Research suggests that being a member of a group creates a preference for that group, the ingroup, and against the outgroup. Nilanjana Dasgupta, Implicit Ingroup Favoritism, Outgroup Favoritism, and Their Behavioral Manifestations, 17 Soc. Justice Res. 143 (2004). The reverse is also true and can be self-perpetuating, that is, once categorized in groups, we see the differences as inherent and remember the ingroup more and more favorably,Fiske, supra note 3, at 406-8, 1090. When the ingroup perceives itself threatened by the outgroup, they have even more negative views of the outgroup. Id. at 1112.

[43] Jolls & Sunstein, supra note 28, at 979.

[44] Intuitive definition, Oxford, supranote 27. See alsoEugene Sadler Smith, Inside Intuition (2008).

[45] See Guthrie, supra note 29 at 8.

[46] Malleability definition, Oxford, supra note 27.

[47] See, e.g., Nilanjana Dasgupta, Mechanisms Underlying Malleability of Implicit Prejudice and Stereotypes: The Role of Automaticity Versus Cognitive Control in T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (2009); Kang & Dasgupta, supra note 9.

[48] Building Trust, supra note 18, at Unit 5. See generally Virginia Valian, Why So Slow? The Advancement of Women 104 (1999).

[49] Bernice Sandler, Association of American Colleges. The Campus Climate Revisited: Chilly for Women Faculty, Administrators, and Graduate Students(1986). Also see references supra note 48.

[50] Building Trust, supra note 18, at Unit 5.

[51] Id.

[52] Rachlinski, supra note 29, at 582. For example, the tendency to blame the family of a person who commits suicide for not having predicted the suicide. Id. at note 36 and references cited therein.

[53] Greenwald & Krieger, supra note 4, at 954 (2006).

[54] Much has been written about the IAT. See, e.g., Susan T. Fiske, Daniel T. Gilbert & Gardner Lindzey, eds., Handbook of Social Psychology 406-8, 1090 (5th ed. 2010) (overview); John T. Jost, Laurie A. Rudman, Irene V. Blair, Dana R. Carney, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Jack Glaser & Curtis D. Hardin, The Existence of Implicit Bias Is Beyond Reasonable Doubt: A Refutation Of Ideological and Methodological Objections and Executive Summary of Ten Studies that No Manager Should Ignore, 29 Res. in Organizational Behav. 39 (2009) (overview); Kristin A. Lane, Mahzarin R. Banaji, Brian A. Nosek & Anthony G. Greenwald, Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: IV. What We Know (So Far),'' in Bernd Wittenbrink & NORBERT S. Schwarz (eds.), Implicit Measures of Attitudes: Procedures (2007) (overview); Willhem Hofmann, Bertram Gawronski, Tobias Gschwender, Huy Le & Manfred Schmitt, A Meta-Analysis on the Correlation Between the Implicit Association Test and Explicit Self-Report Measures, 31 Personality & Soc. Psychol. Bulletin (2005) available at, http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/IATmaterials/PDFs/Hofmann%20&%20al%20(PSPB,2005).pdf; Anthony G. Greenwald, T. Andrew Poehlman, Eric Luis Uhlmann & Mahzarin R. Banaji, Understanding and Using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of Predictive Validity, 97 J. Personality & Soc. Psych. 17 (2009); Thomas F. Pettigrew & Linda R. Tropp, A Meta-Analytic Test of Intergroup Contact Theory, 90 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 751 (2006). Much is also written about the brain functions the IAT measures and many researchers find it to be a better measurement of our biases than an explicit self-reporting approach provides. See, e.g., Jerry Kang, Nilanjana Dasgupta, Kumar Yogeeswaran & Gary Blasi,Are Ideal Litigators White? Measuring the Myth of Colorblindness, 7 J. Empirical Legal Studies 886 (2010); Nilanjana Dasgupta, Implicit Ingroup Favoritism, Outgroup Favoritism, and Their Behavioral Manifestations, 17 Soc. Justice Res. 143 (2004). Researchers have also found the IAT to be a predictor of biased behavior. See, e.g., Greenwald Poehlman, supra this note; Anthony G. Greenwald et al., Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test, 85 J. Personality & Soc. Psychol. 1464 (1998); Kang Colorblind, supra this note; Nilanjana Dasgupta, Mechanisms Underlying Malleability of Implicit Prejudice and Stereotypes: The Role of Automaticity Versus Cognitive Control in T. Nelson (Ed.), Handbook of Prejudice, Stereotyping, and Discrimination (2009). However, not all researchers agree on these points. Bertram Gawronski, Etienne P. Lebel & Kurt R. Peters., What Do Implicit Measures Tell Us? Scrutinizing the Validity of Three Common Assumptions, 2 Perspective on Psychol. Sci. 2 (2007) (summary), available at http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spa/news/data/files/Gawronski_implicit_perspectives_paper.pdf; Bertram Gawronski & B. Keith Payne, Handbook of Implicit Social Cognition: Measurement, Theory and Application 87, 117 (2010) (noting “somewhat low correlation”); Bertram Gawronski, Etienne P. Lebel & Kurt R. Peters., What Do Implicit Measures Tell Us? Scrutinizing the Validity of Three Common Assumptions, 2 Perspective on Psychol. Sci. 2 (2007) (summary), available at http://www.psych.utoronto.ca/users/spa/news/data/files/Gawronski_implicit_perspectives_paper.pdf;Hart Blanton et al., Decoding the Implicit Ass'n Test: Implications for Criterion Prediction, 42 J. Experimental Soc. Psychol. 192 (2006); Philip Tetlock & Gregory Mitchell, Implicit Bias and Accountability Systems: What Must Organizations Do to Prevent Discrimination? 29 Res. in Organizational Behav. 3 (2009); Philip Tetlock & Gregory Mitchell, Calibrating Prejudice in Milliseconds, 71 Soc. Psychol. Q. 12–16 (2008).

[55] David L. Hamilton, Social Cognition: Key Readings in Social Psychology 8 (2005).

[56] Valian, supra note 48, at 104.

[57] E.g., Shawn C. Marsh, The Lens of Implicit Bias, Juvenile and Family Justice Today 17-19 (Summer 2009),  Sarah E. Redfield, Professor of Law, University of New Hampshire School of Law, Bias & Debiasing, Presentation, ABA Section of Litigation, July 25, 2011) (on file with the author).

[58] Schema is a broader term than stereotype, which indicates a negative or inaccurate view. Valian, supra note 48, at 103 (1999).

[59] Kang Primer, supra note2.

[60] IAT, supra note 22.

[61] Greenwald & Krieger, supra note 4 at 950. Harvard’s Project Implicit illustrates: “What is an 'implicit' stereotype? Answer: A stereotype is a belief that members of a group generally possess some characteristic (for example, the belief that women are typically nurturing). An implicit stereotype is a stereotype that is powerful enough to operate without conscious control. Example: Try answering this question: Is John Walters the name of a famous person? If you suspect yes, and especially if you were more likely to think yes than if the question had been about Jane Walters, you might be indirectly expressing a stereotype that associates the category of male (more than that of female) with fame-deserving achievement. And this may be the case even if there is famous female with a similar sounding last name (e.g., Barbara Walters). This type of judgment was used in one of the first experimental studies of implicit stereotypes (Banaji and Greenwald, 1995; Banaji, Hardin, & Rothman, 1994).” IAT FAQs, supra note 1, at Question 20.

[62] See Claude M. Steele, Thin Ice: "Stereotype Threat" and Black College Students, Atlantic Monthly, Aug. 1999, at 47.

[63] Claude M. Steele, Stereotyping and Its Threat Are Real, 53 Am. Psychologist 680, 680-81 (1998); Chris Chambers Goodman, Retaining Diversity in the Classroom: Strategies for Maximizing the Benefits that Flow from a Diverse Student Body, 35 Pepp. L. Rev. 663, 745-75 (2008).

[64] Kang & Banaji, supra note 7, at 1088. See also Steele, supra notes 40 and 42.

[65] Lu-in Wang, Race as Proxy: Situational Racism and Self-Fulfilling Stereotypes, 53 DePaul L. Rev. 1013, 1052-53 (200); Fiske, supra note 3, at 472.

[66] Stroop Task, http://www.snre.umich.edu/eplab/demos/st0/stroopdesc.html(last visited July 1, 2011).

[67] Guthrie, supra note 29, at 8.