The Implicit Association Test:Its Uses (and Potential Misuses) in Organizations

Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Ph.D.Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis

Why focus on race?

Bertrand & Mullainathan (2004)

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

Low High

Resume Quality

Callback

Rate

"White" Name"Black" Name

Why focus on race?

Stauffer & Buckley (2005)

“Everyday” Prejudice, Ethnic Harassment

African American Students

(Swim et al., 2003)

Hispanic Workers

(Schneider et al., 2000)

Frequency: 1 incident every other week

Frequency: at least once in past 24 months

From whom: teachers, employers, neighbors, friends, and strangers From whom: co-workers

Examples: being the target of staring, racist jokes, and bad service, being referred to in derogatory terms, being mistaken for another Black person, and being avoided by Whites in public places

Examples: derogatory comments, ethnic jokes, ethnic slurs, exclusion from social interactions, failure to receive information necessary to do job

2 Forms of Social Cognition

Explicit

Judgments, decisions of which we are consciously aware

Deliberate, intentional

Within our control

Easy to assess

Implicit

Automatically activated evaluations, associations

With little intent, conscious awareness

More difficult to assess

Explicit: Survey data (White respondents)

Schuman et al. (2000)

0

20

40

60

80

100

Blacks Whites

Feelin

g T

herm

om

ete

r R

ati

ng

Social desirability

Fazio et al. (1995)

Lack of awareness

Bargh et al. (1996)

What is the IAT?

Computerized dual-categorization task− Participants assign stimuli to categories using

2 keys

Typically, 2 social & 2 evaluative categories− e.g., White/Black & pleasant/unpleasant

Reaction times reflect the relative ease of pairing social & evaluative− Faster RTs = concepts more closely

associated

Why reaction times? Response latencies reflect automatic associations

Faster = more closely associated

BLACKS

industrioussuccessful

hostileviolent

dangerous

The IAT effect

Average RTs from White+pleasant / Black+unpleasant

Average RTs from White+unpleasant / Black+pleasant

Calculate difference score such that positive values = ingroup preference

Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo (2001) Social Cognition

Distribution w/ White Participants (Ps)

580.0490.0400.0310.0220.0130.040.0-50.0-140.0-230.0

30

20

10

0

Black preference White preference

What does the Race IAT predict (White Ps)?

IAT Explicit

Speaking time .51** .18

Smiling .39* .21

Speech errors .42* .05

Speech hesitation .35* .13

Social comments .32* .02

McConnell & Leibold (2001)

All measures coded such that greater #s = more positive attitudes, behaviors toward White vs. Black

Why does this matter?

Richeson & Shelton (2005)

-0.3-0.25

-0.2-0.15

-0.1-0.05

00.05

0.10.15

Same-Race

Cross-Race

Interaction Observed

Co

rr.

betw

een

Po

s.

Rati

ng

s a

nd

IA

T

Black JudgeWhite Judge

What does the Race (Stereotype) IAT predict (White Ps)?Rudman & Ashmore (2007)

Summary of Race IAT findings

Most Whites implicitly prefer Whites over Blacks

IAT predicts Whites’ subtle behaviors that Blacks interpret as negativity/prejudice

IAT (esp. the stereotype version) predicts Whites’ discriminatory behaviors toward Blacks

Potential Misuses Decisions regarding hiring, firing

580.0490.0400.0310.0220.0130.040.0-50.0-140.0-230.0

30

20

10

0

IAT Scores in Milliseconds

12

10

8

6

4

2

0

White participants Black participants

Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo (2001) Social Cognition Ashburn-Nardo, Knowles, & Monteith (2003) Social Cognition

Potential Misuses Decisions regarding hiring, firing

Ziegart & Hanges (2005)

Potential Uses

Diversity training− Goal: to remove obstacles that might

prevent the professional/personal growth of stigmatized group members (Noe & Ford, 1992)

− One obstacle: lack of awareness; people often fail to recognize prejudice

Study 1: IAT as consciousness-raising tool? (Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo, 2001)

Does the IAT provide palpable info?

How do people interpret and react to the detection of biased performance on the IAT?

Study 1: Method 79 White college student

participants

Procedure− Took racial IAT− Indicate on which trials they felt they

responded especially fast, especially slow, or neither fast nor slow

− Speculate as to why they may have been especially slow for certain types of trials

− Affect checklist

Study 1 Results:Is the IAT effect palpable?

•64% “felt” the IAT effect (fast on congruent; slow on incongruent)

•Actual IAT score and detection of bias, r = .39***

Study 1 Results: Attributions and affect

Attribution % (N=36)

Race, stereotypes 37

Color associations 26

Other 37

Detection of bias and feelings of Negself, r = .30**

Study 1: Summary

95% exhibited an IAT bias favoring Whites over Blacks

64% “felt” that they were faster when White + pleasant and slower when Black + pleasant

17% attributed their response times to race-related factors, and this was associated with greater Negself

Study 2: IAT as teaching tool? (Morris & Ashburn-Nardo, revision in prep)

Does taking the IAT via the demo website (www.implicit.harvard.edu) teach people about implicit social cognition and bias?

Does the IAT web demo make people aware that they may have implicit bias?

What is the affective impact of receiving feedback from the IAT web demo?

Study 2: Method 35 college students enrolled in

undergraduate social psychology courses at Butler & IUPUI

Procedure− Time 1: baseline knowledge about IAT;

beliefs about own biases, beliefs about others’ biases

− Time 2: IAT web demo; positive, negative affect ratings in response to bias feedback

− Time 3: following class discussion, knowledge about IAT; implicit/explicit social cognition and bias; positive, negative affect; beliefs about own biases, beliefs about others’ biases; educational usefulness of IAT demo

Study 2: ResultsTime 1 Time 2 Time 3

IAT knowledge 0.17a 3.51b

Implicit process knowledge 3.66***

Own bias 5.78Aa 7.29Ab

Others’ bias 8.39Ba 9.85Bb

IAT results

86% favored Whites

Positive affect 2.92A 3.02A

Negative affect 2.31B 2.14B

Utility of demo 10.29***

Study 2: Summary Majority of students implicitly favored

Whites over Blacks

After taking the IAT and discussing it in class− students more knowledgeable about IAT

and implicit bias.− students more readily recognized

possibility that they and others have implicit biases.

− students reported more positive than negative affect regarding feedback.

− students saw IAT demo as useful

Even w/o classroom discussion− students reported more positive than

negative affect regarding feedback.

Conclusions IAT inappropriate for selection,

termination decisions

IAT appropriate for diversity training− Increases awareness of implicit

biases− To the extent that people are made

aware, they may be motivated to self-regulate

− Evokes more positive than negative affect

− Seen as worthwhile experience− Easy to administer (via website

demo)