Does your unconscious mind harbor prejudices that differ from your conscious
beliefs regarding race, gender or sexuality? The Implied Association Test (IAT),
from Project Implicit, attempts to reveal whether there is a divergence between
one’s “explicit” attitude or belief on a subject, and one’s “implicit” or unconscious
beliefs, stereotypes, biases or preferences on the subject.
An introduction to the site states: “It is well known that people don’t always
‘speak their minds’, and it is suspected that people don’t always ‘know their minds’.
Understanding such divergences is important to scientific psychology. This web
site presents a method that demonstrates the conscious-unconscious divergences
much more convincingly than has been possible with previous methods.”
There are demonstration IAT’s for topics ranging from Disability, Skin-tone,Gender-
Science, Religion, Weapons, Gender-Career, Race (Black-White, Asian American,
Native American), Sexuality (Straight-Gay), Arab-Muslim, Body Weight, Presidential
Popularityy, and Age (Young-Old), Each demo test takes about ten minutes to
complete.
Project Implicit is jointly sponsored by Psych Departments at Harvard,
Virginia and Washington Universities. The scientists behind the Project
are Mahzarin Rustum Banaji (Harvard); Brian Nosek (U.Virginia); and
Anthony Greewald (Univ. of Washington)
The heart of the Project is a large-scale study of preferences. Volunteers
“have the opportunity to assess your conscious and unconscious prefer-
ences for over 90 different topics ranging from pets to political issues,
ethnic groups to sports teams, and entertainers to styles of music,”
while assisting the Project.
“MRBanaji”
M.R. Banaji
Younger readers may have already heard of Project Implicit from their recent
college days. I discovered it today, through an email invitation from the Harvard
Alumni Club in NYC, to attend a talk on March 2nd by Prof. Banaji, entitled
“Mind Bugs: The Psychology of Ordinary Prejudice.” [If, like me, you can’t
attend, a similarly-titled talk given by Prof. Banaji at Yale Law School is available
from its Video Archive (“Mind Bugs,” March 11, 2003).] Banaji focuses “on
systems that operate in implicit or unconscious mode and their relationship to
conscious social cognition. . . [S]he asks about the social consequences of
unintended thought and feeling, and its implications for theories of individual
responsibility and social justice.”
Yes, it sounds a little woo-woo to me, too. However, it’s also fascinating. The
IATs ask you to put words or pictures into one of two categories. If it takes you
longer to match a word with the appropriate category, it is assumed that your
unconscious or implicit beliefs make your conscious mind work harder to get
the “right” answer — thus, showing an implicit preference/bias for the incorrect
category.
Before starting an IAT, you must agree that:
“I am aware of the possibility of encountering interpretations
of my IAT test performance with which I may not agree.
Knowing this, I wish to proceed.”
So far, I’ve only taken the Gender-Career IAT. Because I responded more
quickly in assigning Male names to the Career category than assigning Female
names to that category, my test performance data “suggest a moderate association
of Male with Career and Female with Family compared to Female with Career and
Male with Family.”
A lot of people, including Prof. Banaji, and test-takers at Montgomery-Blair High
School, in Bethesda, Maryland (Silver Chips Online, April 6, 2005), are unhappy
with the assessments they receive after taking IATs. An article last month in
the Washington Post Magazine ,”See No Bias: Many Americans believe they are
not prejudiced. Now a new test provides powerful evidence that a majority of us
really are” (by Shankar Vedantam, Jan. 23, 2005, p. W12), takes an extended
look at Project Implicit, the results and conclusions drawn from
Here are a few intriguing passages from the WaPo article:
“The tests were better predictors of many behaviors than people’s explicit
opinions were. They predicted preferences on matters of public policy —
even ideological affiliations. Banaji and others soon developed tests for bias
against gays, women and foreigners. The bias tests, which have now been
taken by more than 2 million people, 90 percent of them American, and used
in hundreds of research studies, have arguably revolutionized the study of
prejudice.
“In their simplicity, the tests have raised provocative questions about this
nation’s ideal of a meritocracy and the nature of America’s red state/blue state
political divide. Civil rights activists say the tests have the potential to address
some of the most corrosive problems of American society; critics, meanwhile,
have simultaneously challenged the results and warned they could usher in an
Orwellian world of thought crimes. Banaji has received death threats from supre-
macist groups; sensing that the tests can detect secrets, officials from the Central
Intelligence Agency have made discreet inquiries.
“But the tests do not measure actions. The race test, for example, does not measure
racism as much as a race bias. Banaji is the first to say people ought to be judged by
how they behave, not how they think. She tells incredulous volunteers who show biases
that it does not mean they will always act in biased ways — people can consciously
override their biases. But she also acknowledges a sad finding of the research: Although
people may wish to act in egalitarian ways, implicit biases are a powerful predictor of how
they actually behave.”
Although the tests are anonymous, volunteers are asked about their sex, race and whether they
consider themselves liberal or conservative. Here’s one of the most provocative conclusions from
Banaji and her colleagues:
“Conservatives, on average, show higher levels of bias against gays, blacks and Arabs than
liberals, says Brian Nosek, a psychologist at the University of Virginia and a principal IAT
researcher with Greenwald and Banaji. In turn, bias against blacks and Arabs predicts policy
preferences on affirmative action and racial profiling. This suggests that implicit attitudes affect
more than snap judgments — they play a role in positions arrived at after careful consideration.
“Brian Jones, a Republican National Committee spokesman, says the findings are interesting
in an academic context but questions whether they have much relevance in the real world. “It’s
interesting to ponder how people implicitly make decisions, but ultimately we live in a world where
explicit thoughts and actions are the bottom line,” he says. Volunteers drawn to the tests were
not a random sample of Americans, Jones adds, cautioning against reading too much into the
conclusions.”
For more on this topic, see Stealthy Attitudes, from the Harvard Magazine (Summer 2002).
All and all, a lot of food for thought, debate, devil’s advocacy. Although I’ll have to decline the
invitation, I’m glad the Harvard Club of NYC pointed me to Project Implicit and the work of Prof.
Banaji and her colleagues.
All this talk of psychology put me into the mood for
a bit of poetry from Prof. George Swede:
anchored supertanker
its reflection
trembles
county graveyard
a dog burying
a bone
made for each other
the fishing pole and
the full moon
dropping stone after stone
into the lake I keep
reappearing
February 22, 2006
i don’t like your (implicit) attitude!
Comments Off on i don’t like your (implicit) attitude!
No Comments
No comments yet.
RSS feed for comments on this post.
Sorry, the comment form is closed at this time.