1. The Implicit Association Test: Its Uses (and Potential Misuses) in Organizations Leslie Ashburn-Nardo, Ph.D. Indiana University – Purdue University Indianapolis

2. Why focus on race?

3. Stauffer & Buckley (2005)

4. “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 strangersFrom 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

5. 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

6. Explicit: Survey data (White respondents)

7. Social desirability Fazio et al. (1995)

8. Lack of awareness Bargh et al. (1996)

9. 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

10. Why reaction times?  Response latencies reflect automatic associations  Faster = more closely associated BLACKS industrious successful hostile violent dangerous

11. 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

12. Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo (2001) Social Cognition Distribution w/ White Participants (Ps)  Black preference White preference 

13. What does the Race IAT predict (White Ps)? IATExplicit 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

14. Why does this matter?

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

16. 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

17. Potential Misuses  Decisions regarding hiring, firing White participantsBlack participants Monteith, Voils, & Ashburn-Nardo (2001) Social CognitionAshburn-Nardo, Knowles, & Monteith (2003) Social Cognition

18. Potential Misuses  Decisions regarding hiring, firing Ziegart & Hanges (2005)

19. 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

20. 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?

21. 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

22. 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***

23. Study 1 Results: Attributions and affect Attribution% (N=36) Race, stereotypes37 Color associations26 Other37 Detection of bias and feelings of Negself, r =.30**

24. 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

25. 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?www.implicit.harvard.edu  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?

26. 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

27. Study 2: Results Time 1Time 2Time 3 IAT knowledge0.17 a 3.51 b Implicit process knowledge3.66*** Own bias5.78 Aa 7.29 Ab Others’ bias8.39 Ba 9.85 Bb IAT results 86% favored Whites Positive affect2.92 A 3.02 A Negative affect2.31 B 2.14 B Utility of demo10.29***

28. 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.

29. 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)