1. Bringing Home the Bacon: The Role of Implicit Emotional Attitude on Hiring Ex-Offenders Rebecca Lange, Corey K. Fallon, MS, & Peter Chiu, PhD Department of Psychology, University of Cincinnati Background  High recidivism rates cause excess expenses and danger to the community along with a poor quality of life for the individual who is cycling through the criminal system 1.  Employment significantly reduces recidivism in individuals over twenty-six years old 2.  Past findings reveal a link between implicit attitudes and the automatic emotional reactions that guide decision-making 3. Further, implicit attitude are not always correlated with explicit attitude 4,6.  Previous research found that the majority of employers reported having an explicitly positive attitude toward hiring ex-offenders. Despite their attitude, employers who expressed higher interest in hiring ex-offenders were no more likely to hire an applicant with a criminal background than employers who showed little to no interest 5. The purpose of this study is to gain understanding of an employer’s decision in hiring an ex-offender through analyzing the roles of implicit and explicit attitudes. Methods Results Measures: Implicit Association Test (IAT): Participants see images of individuals in both an orange jumpsuit and plain white shirt. The IAT records reaction times to positive and negative word-picture associations to measure implicit bias 6. Likability Questionnaire: Explicit questions about the intent to hire an ex-offender and agreeability with statements of an individual’s character 7. Analysis: Appropriate analysis of variance (ANOVA) procedures were used to test for statistical significance with regard to effects of implicit and explicit attitudes. Conclusion 1.D’Alessio, S. J., Stolzenberg, L., & Eitle, D. (2014). “Last hired, first fired”: The effect of the unemployment rate on the probability of repeat offending. American Journal Of Criminal Justice, 39(1), 77-93. 2.Uggen, C. (2000). Work as a Turning Point in the Life Course of Criminals: A Duration Model of Age, Employment, and Recidivism. American Sociological Review, 65(4), 529. 3.Bechara A., Damasio H., Tranel D., & Damasio A.R. (1997) Deciding advantageously before knowing the advantageous strategy. Science 275, 1293-1295. 4.Gawronski, B., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2006). Associative and propositional processes in evaluation: An integrative review of implicit and explicit attitude change. Psychological Bulletin, 132, 692-731. 5.Pager, D., & Quillian, L. (2005). Walking the Talk? What Employers Say Versus What They Do. American Sociological Review, 70(3), 355-380. 6.Greenwald, A. G. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. Journal of personality and social psychology, 74(6), 1464-1480. 7.Reysen, S. (2005). Construction of a new scale: The Reysen Likability Scale. Social Behavior and Personality,33(2), 201-208. Recruitment: Forty (13 male, 27 female) University of Cincinnati undergraduates taking Introduction to Psychology Eligibility: Students ages 18-40 taking Introduction to Psychology at the University of Cincinnati. Exclusionary Criteria: (a.) non-English speaking, (b.) receiving treatment for psychological disorders or epilepsy (d.) formally incarcerated, (e.) direct relations to individual currently or formally incarcerated. Results show significantly stronger bias against offenders when compared to non-offenders in both implicit and explicit bias testing, as well as a lower intent to hire an applicant with a criminal background. Effect sizes for both explicit measures were larger than the effect size for implicit bias in our study. These findings are inconsistent with previous research showing that explicit attitudes toward offenders are somewhat positive despite behavior that suggests a negative implicit attitude. 5 These findings may be limited due to the sample of the population used. The majority of the participants were 18 years old, Caucasian females. Future studies should recruit professional employers as participants for further examination of this area of study. References Hypothesis Participants will have a statistically significant implicit bias against offenders compared to the non-offenders. Participants will have a statistically significant explicit bias against offenders compared to non-offenders. Participants will generate a significantly stronger bias against offenders on the implicit association test compared to the explicit likability questionnaire. Figure 1. Screenshot of the IAT. Response time is measured as an indicator of association strength between the offender and positive or negative words Figure 2. Average reaction times to congruent and incongruent word-picture associations. Figure 4. Average intent to hire an offender or non-offender Figure 3. Average overall explicit likeability of offenders and non-offender IAT: Participants had a weak to moderate implicit bias against offenders (D =.31). A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed that this bias was statistically significant, F(1,37)=39.81, p<.001. Explicit Likeability: A one-way repeated measures ANOVA showed a bias against applicants with a criminal background (M=3.62, SD=.61) compared to applicants with no criminal background (M=4.66, SD=.38), F(1,37)=39.81, p<.001, d = 1.42. Intent to Hire: A one-way repeated measures ANOVA revealed participants had a bias against hiring the offenders (M=2.69, SD=.77) compared to non- offenders (M=3.93, SD=.96). F(1,28)=37.01, p<.001., d = 1.37.