Stereotyping and Evaluation in Implicit Race Bias (PDF)

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 91, No. 4, 652– 661 0022-3...

Journal of Personality and Social Psychology Copyright 2006 by the American Psychological Association 2006, Vol. 91, No. 4, 652– 661 0022-3514/06/$12.00 DOI: 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.652 Stereotyping and Evaluation in Implicit Race Bias: Evidence for Independent Constructs and Unique Effects on Behavior David M. Amodio Patricia G. Devine New York University University of Wisconsin—Madison Implicit stereotyping and prejudice often appear as a single process in behavior, yet functional neuro- anatomy suggests that they arise from fundamentally distinct substrates associated with semantic versus affective memory systems. On the basis of this research, the authors propose that implicit stereotyping reflects cognitive processes and should predict instrumental behaviors such as judgments and impression formation, whereas implicit evaluation reflects affective processes and should predict consummatory behaviors, such as interpersonal preferences and social distance. Study 1 showed the independence of participants’ levels of implicit stereotyping and evaluation. Studies 2 and 3 showed the unique effects of implicit stereotyping and evaluation on self-reported and behavioral responses to African Americans using double-dissociation designs. Implications for construct validity, theory development, and research design are discussed. Keywords: prejudice, stereotyping, implicit evaluation, affect, cognition The distinction between affect and cognition in the human affective and semantic neural circuits are most pronounced in more psyche dates back to the earliest philosophers of the mind and basic, implicit levels of processing, theories of implicit race bias continues to be a major feature of modern psychology and neuro- have much to gain by considering the alternative roles of affect and science. Indeed, contemporary theorists have argued that the cognition. affective– cognitive distinction is essential for understanding the In the present research, we examined the roles of affect and mind, brain, and behavior (Cacioppo, Gardner, & Berntson, 1999; cognition in implicit race bias and their effects on behavior. On the Damasio, 1994; Zajonc, 1980), and neuroscientists have delineated basis of theory and research from social psychology and neuro- distinct neural pathways for basic affective and cognitive systems science, we argue for a conceptual distinction between implicit of learning and memory (Davis & Whalen, 2001; Squire & Zola, stereotyping and implicit evaluative race bias and propose that 1996). In the intergroup relations literature, affect and cognition these two forms of implicit race bias are predictive of different traditionally correspond to two key components of race bias: types of discriminatory responses. prejudice and stereotyping (Allport, 1954; Devine, 1989; Dovidio, Brigham, Johnson, & Gaertner, 1996; Fiske, 1998; Mackie & Smith, 1998). Whereas the term prejudice refers to negative af- Relationship Between Implicit Stereotyping and fective responses toward outgroup members (McConahay & Evaluation Hough, 1976), the term stereotype refers to cognitive representa- A survey of the implicit race bias literature reveals that very few tions of culturally held beliefs about outgroup members (Hamilton, studies have directly examined the relation between affective and 1981). cognitive aspects of implicit bias (for reviews, see Blair, 2001; In research on traditional, explicit race biases, the conceptual Fazio & Olson, 2003), and none have sought to obtain independent distinction between prejudice and stereotyping has provided a measures of implicit stereotyping versus evaluation.1 Indeed, most useful framework for examining their respective contributions to expressions of race bias reflect a combination of affective and different forms of discrimination (Dovidio, Esses, Beach, & Gaert- cognitive processes, and the most commonly reported African ner, 2004; Park & Judd, 2005). By contrast, in research on more American stereotypes are negative in valence (e.g., unintelligent, automatic, or implicit, forms of race bias, little attention has been hostile, poor, lazy, and dishonest; Devine & Elliot, 1995). Yet given to the affective– cognitive distinction or the important im- despite the common concurrence of negative valence and stereo- plications it may have for understanding the relationship between types of stigmatized groups, underlying distinctions between af- implicit biases and behavior. Because the distinction between fective and cognitive components may be important for under- standing mechanisms of implicit race biases and their effects on behavior. David M. Amodio, Department of Psychology, New York University; Patricia G. Devine, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin— 1 Madison. Throughout this article, we use the term implicit evaluation rather than We gratefully acknowledge Carolyn Stahlhut, Ryan Beld, and Marissa implicit prejudice as a more precise label to refer to automatic evaluative Langhoff for their assistance in data collection. associations. By using implicit evaluation, we avoid invoking unintended Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to David M. connotations associated with the complicated construct of prejudice, such Amodio, Department of Psychology, New York University, 6 Washington as consciously endorsed racist attitudes and beliefs (Amodio et al., 2003; Place, New York, NY 10003. E-mail: [email protected] Devine et al., 2002). 652  IMPLICIT STEREOTYPING VS. EVALUATIVE RACE BIAS 653 Although the distinction is seldom made, past research has embedded in distributed networks in association cortex and thus featured measures that may be characterized as assessing either may influence social cognition by biasing higher order information implicit stereotyping (e.g., Lepore & Brown, 1997; Spencer, Fein, processing, such as when inferring the beliefs and intentions of Wolfe, Fong, & Dunn, 1998), implicit evaluation (e.g., Amodio, another person (Amodio & Frith, 2006). Although systems for Harmon-Jones, & Devine, 2003; Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, affect- and semantic-based associations typically function in con- Johnson, & Howard, 1997; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, cert, and thus tend to appear blended in outward verbal and 1995; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998), or some combi- behavioral responses, a consideration of their distinct operations is nation of stereotyping and evaluation (e.g., Dovidio, Evans, & critical for understanding the behavioral effects of implicit stereo- Tyler, 1986; Kawakami, Dion, & Dovidio, 1998; Rudman, Ash- typing and evaluation. more, & Gary, 2001; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 1997, 2001). The use of such measures suggests that both are valid constructs that Relationship Between Implicit Stereotyping and Implicit have been studied somewhat independently and that both forms of Evaluative Race Bias implicit bias are prevalent among European Americans, such that African Americans are typically associated with negative evalua- On the basis of social psychological and neuroscientific theo- tions and with the culturally defined stereotype content (Blair, rizing, we proposed that implicit stereotyping and evaluation 2001). However, although the distinction between implicit stereo- should represent independent constructs. Although past theorizing typing and implicit evaluation has been acknowledged in past has pointed to this distinction (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; work (e.g., Greenwald & Banaji, 1995; Greenwald et al., 2002), Greenwald et al., 2002), few studies have explored it directly (cf. theorizing has not been advanced to directly address the relation Dovidio et al., 1986; Kawakami et al., 1998; Rudman, Greenwald, between cognitive and affective mechanisms underlying these two & McGhee, 2001; Wittenbrink et al., 1997, 2001), and none has forms of implicit race bias. examined the respective implications of implicit stereotyping ver- sus implicit evaluation for behavior. A limiting factor in this line Distinct Neural Substrates for Basic Affective and of inquiry is that in previous research, independent assessments of Semantic Associations implicit stereotyping and evaluative race bias have not been ob- tained, and thus it has not been possible to examine the conceptual In the neuroscience literature, neural substrates of affective relationship of implicit stereotyping and evaluative race bias and forms of learning and memory have been distinguished from their potentially unique effects on behavior. Hence, the first major semantic forms, and this distinction has implications for the goal in the present work was to obtain independent measures of present set of issues. Results from decades of research on animals implicit stereotyping and evaluation that would permit a fair test of and humans suggest that the amygdala and its associated subcor- the independence hypothesis. tical circuits are central to affective learning and memory (Lang, Bradley, & Cuthbert, 1990; LeDoux, 2000). This body of work has Differential Effects of Implicit Evaluative Race Bias and shown that affective associations are learned quickly, often after a Stereotyping on Behavior single presentation of an unconditioned stimulus in a fear-learning paradigm. Once learned, such associations extinguish slowly, and If implicit stereotyping and evaluation reflect independent subsequent reconditioning to the stimulus is facilitated (Bouton, cognitive and affective systems, then they may be uniquely 1994). It is important to note that amygdala-based learning does associated with different types of discriminatory responses. not depend on semantic associations; for example, mice easily Consistent with this hypothesis, Millar and Tesser (1986, 1989) learn affective associations despite their inability to process se- argued that instrumental behaviors (e.g., forming judgments mantic information. By comparison, semantic learning and mem- and goals) are driven primarily by cognitive processes, whereas ory (e.g., conceptual priming) are embedded in mechanisms for consummatory behaviors (e.g., appetitive or aversive behav- language, believed to be supported by a phylogenetically newer iors) are driven primarily by affective– evaluative processes. On network of neocortical structures that are significantly expanded the basis of this theorizing, Dovidio and his colleagues (1996, among humans compared with those of other species (Gabrieli, 2004; Esses & Dovidio, 2002; see also Stangor, Sullivan, & 1998; Rissman, Eliassen, & Blumstein, 2003; Squire & Zola, Ford, 1991) proposed that by considering the match between the 1996). Semantic associations may be learned in the absence of affective versus cognitive nature of race-bias measures and affective content, such that patients with a damaged amygdala forms of discriminatory outcomes, greater correspondences be- retain normal semantic associations despite the loss of conditioned tween assessments of race bias and behavior may be attained. In physiological responses in a fear-conditioning paradigm (Bechara, a meta-analysis focusing on explicit self-reports of stereotyping Damasio, & Damasio, 2003). and prejudice, Dovidio et al. (2004) showed that affect-based An examination of anatomical and neurochemical connectivity measures of race bias tended to be predictive of basic approach/ of the amygdala and surrounding structures reveals strong direct avoidance responses (e.g., nonverbal behaviors and affective links with neural regions associated with modulating behavior on responses) toward African Americans, whereas cognition-based the basis of reward and punishment cues (e.g., basal ganglia, motor measures of race bias tended to be predictive of the endorse- cortex, orbital frontal cortex; Davis & Whalen, 2001; Park & Judd, ment of stereotypes and support for policies that disadvantage 2005) and for mobilizing fight or flight responses (e.g., via the African Americans. hypothalamic–pituitary–adrenal axis; Feldman, Conforti, & Wei- Although Dovidio et al.’s meta-analysis focused on explicit denfeld, 1995). By contrast, neocortical regions associated with measures of race bias, extant findings from the implicit race semantic associations appear to have few, if any, direct connec- bias literature are generally consistent with these predictions tions to these systems. Rather, semantic associations are likely (Ashburn-Nardo, Knowles, & Monteith, 2003; Dovidio et al., 654 AMODIO AND DEVINE 1997; Dovidio, Kawakami, & Gaertner, 2002; Fazio et al., Black or White by pressing one of two keys on the computer keyboard. 1995; McConnell & Leibold, 2001; Wilson, Lindsey, & Stimuli consisted of pleasant and unpleasant words as used by Greenwald Schooler, 2000). For example, Fazio et al. (1995) found that et al. (1998) and pictures of White and Black male faces displaying neutral implicit evaluative bias was predictive of less friendly behavior expressions (Malpass, Lavigueur, & Weldon, 1973) as used by Devine, toward a Black experimenter but was not associated with par- Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, and Vance (2002; Study 3). Pleasant words included honor, lucky, diamond, loyal, freedom, rainbow, love, honest, ticipants’ views on the Rodney King verdict and ensuing riots. peace, and heaven. Unpleasant words included evil, cancer, sickness, In other research, greater implicit evaluative bias was associ- disaster, poverty, vomit, bomb, rotten, abuse, and murder. ated with more uncomfortable interactions (e.g., less eye con- The IAT procedure comprised five blocks of trials (Greenwald et al., tact, more blinking) with a Black confederate compared with 1998). Stimuli were presented individually in the center of the computer those involving a White confederate (Dovidio et al., 1997, monitor in randomized order. In Block 1, participants viewed 10 Black 2002) and more negative interactions with a Black experimenter and 10 White faces and categorized Black faces by pressing the left on a host of indicators, including speech hesitations and errors response key (“a” on the alphabetic keyboard) and White faces by and behavior judged to be abrupt, unfriendly, and uncomfort- pressing the right response key (“5” on numeric keypad). In Block 2, able (McConnell & Leibold, 2001). By contrast, researchers participants viewed 10 pleasant and 10 unpleasant words, categorizing have not examined the unique effects of implicit stereotyping unpleasant words with the left response key and pleasant words with the on behavior, although some previous findings bear on the topic. right response key. In Block 3, stimuli included White faces, Black For example, Kawakami et al. (1998) found that higher levels of faces, pleasant words, and unpleasant words, and response mappings were combined such that participants categorized Black faces and implicit stereotyping were predictive of the attribution of ste- unpleasant words by pressing the left response key and White faces and reotypic traits to a larger proportion of African Americans (in pleasant words by pressing the right response key. This block consisted addition to reporting more prejudiced attitudes). It is important of 40 trials and was referred to as the compatible block (Greenwald et to note that in previous research, the hypothesis that implicit al., 1998), given that response pairings of White with good and Black stereotyping and implicit evaluation are uniquely predictive of with bad are compatible with Whites’ tendency to prefer White faces alternative forms of race-biased behavior has not been directly over Black faces. In Block 4, participants viewed 10 Black and 10 tested. Hence, the second main goal of the present work was to White faces but this time categorized White faces with the left response test this hypothesis directly. key and Black faces with the right response key to counterbalance response mappings. In Block 5, categorizations were again combined Overview of Present Research such that participants categorized White faces and unpleasant words by pressing the left response key and Black faces and pleasant words by In the present research, we examined the relationship between pressing the right response key. This block included 40 trials and was implicit stereotyping and implicit evaluative race bias and their referred to as the incompatible block. Half of the participants completed respective effects on instrumental versus consummatory forms of the IAT as described above; half completed a version with reversed race-biased behavior. Although stereotyping and evaluation pro- response mappings. cesses typically operate in concert, it was necessary for us to obtain Stereotyping IAT. We designed a new IAT in which participants relatively pure measures of implicit stereotyping and evaluation to viewed two classes of words associated with the positive characteristics of examine their unique effects on behavior. To this end, we designed intelligence and athleticism/rhythmicity, and categorized them as mental or separate implicit association tests (IATs) to assess implicit stereo- physical, respectively, in addition to the Black versus White face catego- rizations. Intelligence and athleticism/rhythmicity are central to the African typing and implicit evaluative race bias. The IAT was chosen American stereotype, such that African Americans are stereotyped as more because it has been shown to be reliable (Greenwald, Nosek, & athletic/rhythmic and less intelligent than European Americans (Devine & Banaji, 2003), and it has been widely used in the implicit race bias Elliot, 1995). Because the mental and physical categories were relatively literature (Devine, 2001). In Study 1, we examined the degree to neutral, the categorization of words relating to athleticism/rhythmicity and which measures of implicit stereotyping and evaluative race bias intelligence as mental or physical did not involve evaluative judgments.2 were independent (i.e., uncorrelated). In Studies 2 and 3, we Target word stimuli used in the stereotyping IAT were selected on the examined the unique effects of implicit stereotyping and evalua- basis of pretesting.3 Ten target words were selected for each category on tion on instrumental and consummatory forms of behavior. the basis of category fit and stereotypicality. Mental words included math, brainy, aptitude, educated, scientist, smart, college, genius, book, and read. Study 1 Physical words included athletic, boxing, basketball, run, agile, dance, jump, rhythmic, track, and football. The procedure for the stereotyping IAT Method was identical to that of the evaluative IAT, except that the pleasant and Participants and Procedure 2 One hundred fifty-one European American introductory psychology We developed additional IATs for other common African American students (82 women, 69 men) participated in exchange for extra course stereotypes. Using the method by which Rudman, Greenwald, and McGhee credit. After providing informed consent, participants received instructions (2001) measured implicit gender stereotyping, we pretested sets of target on completing separate IAT measures of stereotyping and prejudice ad- words related to poor (vs. wealthy), hostile (vs. friendly), and lazy (vs. ministered on a PC using Inquisit software (Millisecond Software, Seattle, motivated). In each case, however, the stereotype was strongly related to WA). IAT order was counterbalanced across participants. After completing evaluation (e.g., poor is negative and wealthy is positive), and therefore the measures, participants were debriefed, thanked, and dismissed. these were not suitable for examining the independence of implicit eval- uation and implicit stereotyping. 3 Materials Our lab group first generated separate lists of 22 words corresponding to the physical and mental categories. Sixty-one introductory psychology Evaluative IAT. The IAT is a dual categorization task in which par- students then rated the fit of each word with its respective category and its ticipants categorize words as pleasant or unpleasant and faces as either degree of association with White and Black Americans on a scale of 1 (not  IMPLICIT STEREOTYPING VS. EVALUATIVE RACE BIAS 655 unpleasant target words and category labels were replaced with SD ⫽.43), t(147) ⫽ 4.72, p ⬍.001, r ⫽.36, such that participants intelligence- and athletics-related target words and the mental and physical exhibited a pattern of stereotypic trait associations with Black and category labels. Hence, the compatible block included Black/physical and White faces. No effects were found for sex or IAT order, Fs ⬍ 1. White/mental categorizations and the incompatible block included Black/ Next, we tested our primary hypothesis that levels of implicit mental and White/physical categorizations. stereotyping and implicit evaluation should be independent by IAT scoring. Responses to the evaluative and stereotyping IATs were examining their correlation. Participants’ evaluative and stereotyp- scored using the “improved algorithm,” outlined by Greenwald et al. (2003, p. 214), which produced the D statistic.4 However, because the IAT used ing IAT scores were not significantly correlated, r(147) ⫽.06, p ⫽ in Study 1 consisted of the original five-block version (Greenwald et al.,.47, supporting our hypothesis. 1998), steps involving practice blocks were omitted. Following the algo- rithm, responses with latencies greater than 10,000 ms were removed. Discussion Separate means were computed for correct raw response latencies on compatible and incompatible blocks. Error responses within each block The results of Study 1 showed that participants possessed sig- were replaced by the mean correct reaction time for that block, plus a nificant levels of implicit evaluative and stereotyping biases but 600-ms error penalty. D was quantified as the difference between incom- that their levels of each bias were uncorrelated, suggesting con- patible and compatible mean reaction times divided by the pooled standard ceptual independence. It is noteworthy that although athleticism, deviation of reaction times on compatible and incompatible blocks. Data rhythmicity, and (un)intelligence represent a subset of commonly from two participants were excluded because of outlying scores (Student’s observed African American stereotypes, they are among the most t scores differed significantly from mean, p ⬍.05), and data from one central to the stereotype. Indeed, these three attributes were the participant were excluded because a high percentage of his responses most frequently cited by participants instructed to freely list traits (18%) on the stereotyping IAT were faster than 300 ms (Greenwald et al., 2003); results did not differ when outliers were included. associated with African Americans (Devine & Elliot, 1995). Be- cause our stereotyping IAT focused on the three most central traits of the African American stereotype, and given previous findings Results that the activation of a central stereotype typically activates the Evidence for implicit bias was examined using one-sample t constellation of African American stereotypes (Devine, 1989; tests of D scores (effect size r is presented for each t value). All Lepore & Brown, 1997), it is likely that our measure of implicit tests were two-tailed. Evaluative IAT scores were significantly stereotyping reflected associations with the general African Amer- greater than zero (M ⫽.51, SD ⫽.42), t(147) ⫽ 14.60, p ⬍.001, ican stereotype. Nevertheless, it would be important to show that r ⫽.77, suggesting a negative evaluative association with Black stereotyping IAT scores were predictive of responses to an African faces relative to White faces, replicating past work. Stereotyping American target, reflecting stereotypic content that reached be- IAT scores were also significantly greater than zero (M ⫽.17, yond traits of (un)intelligence, athleticism, and rhythmicity. Studies 2 and 3 were designed with two goals in mind: to replicate Study 1 findings and to test the hypothesis that implicit stereotyping and evaluation are uniquely predictive of different at all) to 9 (extremely). Pretest ratings of category fit for physical and forms of race-biased behavioral outcomes. The behavioral effects mental target words exceeded the scale midpoint, ps ⬍.001, indicating that of implicit stereotyping and evaluation in Studies 2 and 3 were target words were good exemplars of their respective categories, and fit examined using double-dissociation designs constructed to isolate scores for the mental and physical target words did not differ, t(60) ⫽.40, unique effects of predictors on specific outcome variables. Here, p ⫽.69, r ⫽.05. Physical target words were rated as more stereotypical of we tested the hypothesis that implicit stereotyping would be asso- Black people (M ⫽ 7.68, SD ⫽ 0.98) than of White people (M ⫽ 5.19, SD ⫽ 1.26), t(60) ⫽ 13.12, p ⬍.001, r ⫽.86, whereas mental target words ciated with instrumental but not with consummatory forms of were rated as more stereotypical of White people (M ⫽ 7.23, SD ⫽1.42) race-biased behavior, whereas implicit evaluative race bias would than of Black people (M ⫽ 4.30, SD ⫽ 1.31), t(60) ⫽ 13.31, p ⬍.001, be associated with consummatory but not with instrumental forms r ⫽.86. of race-biased behavior. A separate sample of 39 participants rated the favorability of words associated with the mental/physical and pleasant/unpleasant IATs on a Study 2 scale from 1 (extremely unfavorable) to 9 (extremely favorable). Pleasant words (M ⫽ 7.93, SD ⫽ 0.54) were rated much more favorably than In Study 2, we examined the degree to which participants’ levels unpleasant words (M ⫽ 1.75, SD ⫽ 0.58), t(38) ⫽ 38.83, p ⬍.001, r ⫽.99. of implicit stereotyping and evaluation influenced their impres- Unexpectedly, mental words (M ⫽ 7.06, SD ⫽ 0.78) were rated as more sions of an African American student. To measure instrumental favorable than were physical words (M ⫽ 6.22, SD ⫽.77), t(38) ⫽ 7.07, forms of behavior, we assessed participants’ use of stereotypes as p ⬍.001, r ⫽.75, although both mental and physical word lists were rated they formed an impression of the African American student on the significantly above the neutral midpoint of the scale, ps ⬍.001, and both basis of the student’s writing sample (Moreno & Bodenhausen, were rated as more favorable than unpleasant words, ps ⬍.001, and less favorable than pleasant words, ps ⬍.001. Although mental words were 2001). To measure basic approach/avoidance responses associated rated more favorably than physical words, this difference was much with consummatory behaviors, we examined participants’ prefer- smaller than the difference in ratings between pleasant and unpleasant ence for the writer as a potential friend. We also collected partic- words, t(38) ⫽ 28.77, p ⬍.001, r ⫽.98. We used covariate analyses in our ipants’ affective ratings of various ethnic groups, including Afri- hierarchical regressions to ensure that effects of stereotyping IAT scores can Americans, using a feelings thermometer measure. We were not driven by evaluative associations (and vice versa) because any shared variance was statistically controlled. If anything, the valence effect 4 found among the stereotyping IAT words would enhance the relationship IAT effects based on difference scores (e.g., Greenwald et al., 1998) between implicit stereotyping and evaluation, thereby working against our replicated results reported for the D statistic in all studies. Analyses of hypotheses and rendering more conservative tests. difference scores are available from the authors. 656 AMODIO AND DEVINE hypothesized that implicit stereotyping but not implicit evaluation for African Americans, European Americans, Asian Americans, and would be related to more stereotypic trait ratings of the African Latino Americans. American student, whereas implicit evaluation but not stereotyping would relate to a greater desire to befriend the writer and more Results negative affective responses toward African Americans. IAT Effects Method As in Study 1, participants exhibited significant levels of im- plicit evaluation (M ⫽ 0.32, SD ⫽ 0.17), t(31) ⫽ 10.96, p ⬍.001, Participants and Procedure r ⫽.89, and implicit stereotyping (M ⫽ 0.29, SD ⫽ 0.23), t(31) ⫽ 7.24, p ⬍.001, r ⫽.79, yet IAT scores were not significantly Thirty-six European American introductory psychology students (15 correlated, r(30) ⫽.16, p ⫽.37. No significant effects emerged for men, 21 women) participated in exchange for extra course credit. After sex or IAT order, Fs ⬍ 2.04, ps ⬎.16. providing consent, participants were told that the study consisted of two parts. The experimenter explained that the first part examined people’s ability to form impressions of others on the basis of short writing samples. IAT Effects on Behavioral Responses Participants were shown a set of 10 file folders containing different writing To test our main hypotheses regarding double dissociations of samples and were asked to choose one at random (although all folders the stereotyping and evaluation IATs, we used hierarchical linear contained identical materials). Participants were given the chosen folder, which contained the writer’s demographic information, a copy of the essay, regressions. First, the D score for the IAT that was not hypothe- and a set of forms to record their ratings. The demographic information sized to predict the outcome was entered as a covariate in Step 1. included the writer’s name, age, sex, ethnicity, year in college, and home- In Step 2, D for the hypothesized predictor was added to the town, indicating that he was a 19-year-old male African American soph- regression model. We could then obtain evidence for a double omore from Milwaukee, WI. Participants transferred this demographic dissociation by examining the simultaneous effects of the two information onto the evaluation form; read the essay, which contained predictors in Step 2. The semipartial r (sr) is reported as an effect some grammatical and spelling errors; and then provided their ratings of size estimate. the essay and the writer. As the second part of the study, participants completed the evaluative and stereotyping IATs, in counterbalanced order, and the feelings thermometer measure. The essay ratings, IATs, and the Stereotype Ratings feelings thermometer measure were administered in this order to prioritize Evaluative IAT scores, entered in Step 1, did not predict ste- the more covert measures as a means of minimizing participants’ suspi- cions. Lastly, participants were probed for suspicion regarding the cover reotype ratings of the African American essay writer, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.17, story and hypotheses, debriefed, thanked, and dismissed. Five participants’ t(29) ⫽ ⫺0.90, p ⫽.37, sr ⫽ ⫺.17. However, higher stereotyping data were excluded because their scores on one or more measures differed IAT scores were associated with more stereotypic ratings of the significantly from the mean ( p ⬍.05) in a Student’s t distribution and were African American essay writer in Step 2, ␤ ⫽.39, t(28) ⫽ 2.70, considered outliers. Although inclusion of outliers inflated standard errors p ⫽.03, sr ⫽.39, whereas the effect of evaluative IAT scores and thus weakened effect sizes, it did not change the pattern of effects. remained nonsignificant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.23, t(28) ⫽ ⫺1.33, p ⫽.20, sr ⫽ ⫺.23. Ratings of nonstereotypic traits were not associated with scores on the stereotyping IAT, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.01, t(29) ⫽ ⫺0.04, p ⫽.97, Materials sr ⫽ ⫺.01, or the evaluative IAT, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.02, t(28) ⫽ ⫺0.11, p ⫽ Evaluative and stereotyping IATs. The evaluative and stereotyping.92, sr ⫽ ⫺.02. Finally, when nonstereotypic ratings were included IATs consisted of the same stimuli described in Study 1 but were admin- as a covariate in Step 1, stereotyping IAT scores continued to istered using DirectRT software (Empirisoft, New York) and included sets predict stereotypic ratings, ␤ ⫽.39, t(27) ⫽ 2.73, p ⬍.01, sr ⫽ of 20 practice trials before the compatible and incompatible blocks. The D.38, whereas evaluative IAT scores did not, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, t(28) ⫽ statistic was computed as in Study 1, with the additional incorporation of ⫺1.13, p ⫽.26, sr ⫽ ⫺.18. responses from the practice blocks (Greenwald et al., 2003). Essay evaluation materials. The essay evaluation form included items for rating (a) the general quality and style of the essay (included to bolster Affective Responses the cover story), (b) the trait attributes of the writer, and (c) participants’ liking of and perceived similarity with the writer. Trait ratings of the writer In analyses of preference for the writer, stereotyping IAT scores were made using a scale ranging from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much) on entered in Step 1 were not predictive of preferences, ␤ ⫽.06, a list of adjectives known to be highly associated with the Black stereotype t(29) ⫽ 0.33, p ⫽.75, sr ⫽.06. In Step 2, higher evaluative IAT (lazy, dishonest, unintelligent, and trustworthy; Devine & Elliot, 1995) scores were associated with less desire to befriend the essay writer, intermixed with filler traits that were relatively neutral and not typically ␤ ⫽ ⫺.32, t(28) ⫽ ⫺1.79, p ⫽.08, sr ⫽ ⫺.32, whereas the effect associated with the stereotype (modest, assertive, and thoughtful). Ratings for stereotyping IAT scores remained nonsignificant, ␤ ⫽.01, were averaged to form separate indices of stereotypic ratings (␣ ⫽.68, t(28) ⫽.04, p ⫽.97, sr ⫽.01, supporting our hypothesis. Partic- with trustworthy reverse-scored) and neutral filler ratings (␣ ⫽.53). Liking ipants’ feelings thermometer ratings provided an additional index ratings were made for five items (e.g., “The writer seems like the type of of consummatory response toward African Americans that could person I would like to get to know better”; “The writer and I have a lot of be used to corroborate the marginally significant effect on prefer- things in common”) on a scale of 1 (strongly disagree) to 10 (strongly agree; mean ratings: ␣ ⫽.73). ence for the writer. Average thermometer ratings for Whites, Feelings thermometer. The feelings thermometer questionnaire Asians, and Latinos were entered in the first regression step as a consisted of a scale along which a range of “degrees” were depicted, baseline covariate, followed by stereotyping IAT scores in Step 2 from 0° (extremely unfavorable) to 100° (extremely favorable), with and evaluative IAT scores in Step 3. The effect for baseline 50° labeled neither favorable nor unfavorable. Ratings were provided thermometer ratings was significant, ␤ ⫽.90, t(29) ⫽ 11.40, p ⬍  IMPLICIT STEREOTYPING VS. EVALUATIVE RACE BIAS 657.001, sr ⫽.90, which reflected individual differences in scale Method usage, but the effect for stereotyping IAT scores was not signifi- cant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.10, t(28) ⫽ ⫺1.25, p ⫽.22, sr ⫽ ⫺.10. Notably, Participants higher evaluative IAT scores were predictive of more negative In the first phase of this study, participants were 43 introductory psy- feelings toward African Americans, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, t(27) ⫽ ⫺2.04, chology students, 23 of whom were successfully recruited later in the p ⫽.05, sr ⫽ ⫺.16, consistent with effects for writer preference. semester for what they believed was an unrelated study. Evaluative IAT Additional analyses examining IAT effects on thermometer ratings data from 2 participants were missing because of a computer malfunction, of Whites, Asians, and Latinos produced no significant effects. leaving 21 participants (13 women, 8 men) with valid data from both sessions. IAT scores of participants who did versus those who did not return for Session 2 did not differ, ps ⬎.23. Discussion The results of Study 2 further supported the independence of Procedure implicit stereotyping and implicit evaluation, such that scores on Session 1. Participants completed stereotyping and evaluative IATs in the stereotyping and evaluative IATs were not significantly corre- one of two counterbalanced orders, and the IATs were scored to yield D lated. Furthermore, our regression analyses revealed the hypothe- scores, as in Study 2. sized double dissociation between implicit stereotyping and im- Session 2. Participants were told the study would involve pairs of plicit evaluation effects. These results indicated that cognitive and participants. At the scheduled experiment time, the experimenter entered affective forms of implicit race bias are uniquely associated with the waiting room and called out the names of the participant and the instrumental versus consummatory forms of race-biased behavior, (imaginary) partner. The partner’s name alternated between “Darnell Stew- respectively, and hence showed discriminant and predictive valid- art” and “Tyrone Washington” to suggest African American ethnicity ity of the stereotyping and evaluative IATs. It is notable that (Greenwald et al., 1998). Noting that the partner had not yet arrived, the although the stereotyping IAT focused on a subset of the African experimenter escorted the participant to the experiment room to get started. American stereotype (e.g., athleticism, rhythmicity, and lack of After providing consent, the participant was told the following: intelligence), it predicted a broader instantiation of the stereotype, We’re studying peoples’ ability to cooperate with another person on including the descriptors of lazy, dishonest, and (un)trustworthy, some tasks assessing different types of general knowledge. You and a consistent with research evidencing strong links between subcom- partner are going to complete a set of tasks, and then your combined ponents of the stereotype (e.g., Devine, 1989). score on these tasks will be compared with other teams who are in this Although Study 2 provided good support for our hypotheses study. You should try your best on these tasks, because the teams with using conventional social psychological measures, it may have the top five combined scores will be entered into a drawing for $40. been limited in some respects. For instance, the procedure of Study Participants were then asked to rate their abilities in various subject 2 did not provide a good model of how implicit race biases would areas, including their mathematic and verbal skills and their knowledge of predict a White person’s responses in anticipation of a real-life sports and cultural trivia. The experimenter then left momentarily, purport- interaction with an African American. A second potential limita- edly to check for the arrival of the partner. After a few minutes, the tion was that the predictor and outcome variables were collected in experimenter returned to explain that the other participant had arrived and the same experimental session, precluding causal inference and was filling out initial questionnaires in another room. The participant was raising the possibility that the outcome measures might have then shown the one-page participant information form identical to that used influenced IAT scores. These limitations were addressed in Study in Study 2. The top half was already filled in by the partner so that the 3, in which participants completed measures of implicit stereotyp- participant would see he was African American. The participant completed the bottom half of the form. ing and evaluation several weeks before being recruited for a Next, the experimenter noted they were running behind schedule and purportedly separate experiment in which they expected to interact gave the following explanation: with an African American participant. To save time, I’m going to have you decide which tasks you’ll do and which your partner will do. Then we’ll all go to the main testing room. Study 3 Remember, you want to choose tasks for yourself and your partner Study 3 comprised two sessions. In the first session, participants that will give you the best combined score, not just so that only you completed IAT measures of stereotyping and evaluative race bias. or he will do well. There are four different tests: one has questions from the math SAT, another has questions from the verbal SAT, and In the second, ostensibly unrelated session, participants were led to the other two have questions about sports and popular culture. believe that they would interact with an African American partner on various tasks involving tests of academic (verbal and math- Participants indicated which tasks they chose for themselves and their ematic) and nonacademic (sports and popular culture) knowledge. partners and then rated their perceptions of how well they and their partners Participants rated how well they thought that they and their partner would perform on each of the tasks.5 After leaving briefly to check up on would perform on each of these tasks (Ashburn-Nardo et al., 2003) the supposed partner, the experimenter explained that the participant and as an index of instrumental behavior. To assess consummatory the partner would now meet together in another room to complete their behavior, we measured the distance participants chose to sit from tasks. The experimenter led the participant out of the experiment room and, the partner’s belongings in a row of chairs just prior to their interactions (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). We 5 Participants were rather egalitarian in their assignments of the aca- hypothesized that implicit stereotyping but not evaluation would demic tasks, with 20 of 21 participants assigning one of the SAT tasks to predict stereotype-consistent performance expectations, whereas themselves and the other to the partner. This pattern restricted the variance implicit evaluation but not stereotyping would predict seating of task assignments, and thus it was an insensitive measure of stereotype- distance from the partner. consistent behavior. 658 AMODIO AND DEVINE explaining that the partner had left momentarily to use the bathroom, Similarly, ratings of expected partner enjoyment on more directed the participant to sit in one of a row of chairs to wait. Eight stereotype-consistent tasks were not associated with evaluative identical chairs were arranged in a line, equally spaced approximately 4 in. IAT scores in Step 1, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.06, t(19) ⫽ ⫺0.25, p ⫽.81, sr ⫽ (10.16 cm) apart along the hallway. A coat and backpack putatively ⫺.06, but were significantly associated with stereotyping IAT belonging to the partner were placed on the chair nearest to the experiment scores in Step 2, ␤ ⫽.44, t(18) ⫽ 2.07, p ⫽.05, sr ⫽.44. room doorway. After the participant chose a seat, the experimenter sur- reptitiously recorded the participant’s seating position and then left mo- mentarily to photocopy the participant’s information sheet. Seating Distance From Partner After returning, the experimenter explained that the session would have to end early and led the participant back into the experiment room. The On average, participants sat 1.7 (SD ⫽.78) chairs away from the experimenter then probed the participant for suspicion regarding the cover partner’s belongings. Stereotyping IAT scores, included in Step 1, story and the connection between Sessions 1 and 2, provided a debriefing were not associated with seating distance, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.09, t(19) ⫽ and full explanation of the procedures, and then thanked and dismissed the ⫺0.37, p ⫽.71, sr ⫽ ⫺.09. However, as revealed in Step 2, participant. Two participants expressed some suspicion but were unable to participants with higher evaluative IAT scores chose to sit further identify key aspects of the cover story, the connection between Sessions 1 from the partner’s belongings, ␤ ⫽.44, t(18) ⫽ 2.10, p ⫽.05, sr ⫽ and 2, or the hypotheses..44, whereas the effect of stereotyping IAT scores remained non- significant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.09, t(28) ⫽ ⫺0.45, p ⫽.66, sr ⫽ ⫺.09, Materials supporting our hypothesis. Participants rated how well they thought that they would perform on the tests of SAT mathematic and verbal skills, sports trivia, and popular culture Discussion on a scale ranging from 1 (very poorly) to 9 (very well). Ratings of expected enjoyment on each task were also made on a scale ranging from The results of Study 3 corroborated and extended the findings of 1 (not at all) to 9 (very much). Next, participants rated their expectations Study 2. Greater implicit stereotyping scores uniquely predicted of their partner’s performance and enjoyment on the same tasks, using the more stereotype-consistent expectations for the partner’s perfor- same scales. mance, whereas greater implicit evaluation scores uniquely pre- dicted greater seating distance from the African American part- Results ner’s belongings. These findings provided additional support for our double-dissociation hypothesis of implicit stereotyping versus IAT Scores evaluation, whereby implicit stereotyping is rooted in semantic processes and is uniquely predictive of discrimination associated Participants exhibited significant levels of implicit evaluation with instrumental responses, whereas implicit evaluation is rooted (M ⫽ 0.38, SD ⫽ 0.29), t(20) ⫽ 5.93, p ⬍.001, r ⫽.80, and in affective processes and is uniquely predictive of discrimination implicit stereotyping (M ⫽ 0.15, SD ⫽ 0.18), t(20) ⫽ 3.70, p ⬍ associated with consummatory responses..001, r ⫽.64. Evaluative and stereotyping IAT scores were un- The Study 3 findings allayed concerns over some potential correlated, r(19) ⫽.02, p ⫽.93, replicating the findings of Studies limitations of Study 2. First, the differential effects of implicit 1 and 2. stereotyping and evaluation of Study 2 were replicated in a more realistic, ecologically valid context. Second, the two-session pro- Ratings of Partner Abilities and Enjoyment cedure used in Study 3 alleviated concerns regarding the order in An index was created to represent the extent to which the which measures were administered in Study 2. Moreover, because partner was expected to perform poorly on academic tasks but to IAT scores collected in the initial session were predictive of excel on nonacademic tasks, relative to participants’ own expected behaviors weeks later, our results suggest the effects of implicit performance. Participants’ self-expectation ratings on each task bias are stable over time. were subtracted from their partner-expectation ratings. These scores were standardized, with ratings of counter-stereotype skills General Discussion (mathematic and verbal) reverse-scored, and averaged, such that The present research produced two major findings. First, results higher scores represented more stereotype-consistent expectations suggest that implicit stereotyping and evaluative race biases rep- of the partner’s performance, relative to expectations of the self. resent conceptually independent constructs. Despite exhibiting sig- The hypothesized double-dissociation effects were tested using nificant levels of bias on both implicit measures across studies, hierarchical regressions as in Study 2. In Step 1, evaluative IAT participants’ scores on these two measures were not significantly scores were not significantly associated with expectations of the correlated, consistent with evidence for independent mechanisms partner’s performance, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.24, t(19) ⫽ ⫺1.08, p ⫽.29, sr ⫽ of basic cognitive and affective processes (Cacioppo et al., 1999; –.24. However, in Step 2, higher stereotyping IAT scores signifi- Squire & Zola, 1996; Zajonc, 1980). Second, the results showed cantly predicted more stereotype-consistent expectations for the that implicit stereotyping and implicit evaluation have unique partner’s performance, ␤ ⫽.47, t(18) ⫽ 2.32, p ⫽.03, sr ⫽.47, effects on alternative forms of race-biased behavior. The results of whereas the effect of evaluative IAT scores remained nonsignifi- Study 2 showed that implicit stereotyping but not evaluation was cant, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.25, t(28) ⫽ ⫺1.24, p ⫽.23, sr ⫽ ⫺.25.6 When participant sex was included in Step 1 as a covariate, effects for sex, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.18, t(18) ⫽ ⫺0.76, p ⫽.46, sr ⫽ ⫺.17, and evaluative 6 IAT scores were not associated with absolute ratings of expected IAT scores, ␤ ⫽ ⫺.19, t(18) ⫽ ⫺0.79, p ⫽.44, sr ⫽ ⫺.18, were performance for the self, ps ⬎.37, or the partner, ps ⬎.30, indicating that not significant, whereas the effect for stereotyping IAT scores implicit stereotyping effects were observable only when partner ratings remained significant, ␤ ⫽.50, t(17) ⫽ 2.48, p ⫽.02, sr ⫽.49. were anchored by participants’ self-reference.  IMPLICIT STEREOTYPING VS. EVALUATIVE RACE BIAS 659 predictive of stereotype-consistent trait ratings of a Black student via alternative routes of processing (cf. Greenwald et al., 2002). that were based on a short writing sample. In contrast, implicit Granted, stereotypes and affective responses are typically congru- evaluative race bias but not stereotyping was predictive of partic- ent and work together to facilitate a coordinated response (e.g., ipants’ belief that they would get along with the student as a friend. racial discrimination). Nevertheless, the predictive utility of a Study 3 extended these findings by focusing on participants’ theory depends on whether it can be used to discern underlying behavior as they prepared to interact with an African American processes and their respective effects on behavior. Future models partner. In this study, implicit stereotyping, but not evaluation, of implicit race bias will benefit from the conceptual distinction predicted stereotype-consistent expectations of how well the Af- presented here in several ways. First, a consideration of alternative rican American partner would perform on a series of tasks. On the forms of implicit bias will enhance predictive validity by permit- other hand, implicit evaluative race bias, but not stereotyping, ting more refined hypotheses for how different forms of implicit predicted how far participants chose to sit from the African Amer- bias should affect behavior. Second, our analysis links implicit ican partner’s belongings in a row of chairs. Although the samples stereotyping and evaluative bias to physiological models of the used in Studies 2 and 3 were relatively small, the use of double- brain and behavior, permitting integration with other theoretical dissociation designs ensured that null effects were always inter- approaches and suggesting appropriate physiological indicators for preted in the context of a complementary significant effect, and different forms of bias. Indeed, previous research has associated therefore low statistical power cannot account for the pattern of indices of amygdala activity with implicit evaluation (e.g., Amodio results. Taken together, these findings support the overarching et al., 2003; Phelps et al., 2000). Although neural correlates of hypothesis that implicit stereotyping processes are predictive of implicit racial stereotyping have not yet been determined, event- instrumental forms of race-biased behavior, whereas implicit eval- related potential research on stereotype-based expectancy violation uative processes are predictive of consummatory forms of race- is consistent with a neocortical (versus subcortical) substrate (e.g., biased behavior. Bartholow, Fabiana, Gratton, & Bettencourt, 2001). If implicit stereotyping and evaluation arise from distinct neural substrates, as we proposed, it follows that they are learned and Implications for Theory and Research on Implicit unlearned via different mechanisms. One may refine theories of Race Bias implicit race bias malleability and change by considering the Clarifying the Construct of Implicit Race Bias respective dynamics of classical (fear) conditioning versus seman- tic associative learning. For example, human and animal models of In recent years, social psychologists have grappled with the learning and memory suggest that implicit evaluations may be meaning of implicit race biases in an effort to understand what learned more quickly and unlearned more slowly than implicit they represent, how they function, and what they may predict (cf. stereotypes. They also suggest that claims that implicit prejudice Devine, 2001; Fazio & Olson, 2003). Against a backdrop of mixed can be extinguished following a single experimental manipulation findings regarding the effects of implicit race bias on behavior may be implausible and that other interpretations should be con- (Blair, 2001), our theorizing and results suggest that significant sidered (e.g., the manipulation inhibited the initial activation of effects of implicit race bias on behavior may be observed when bias or elicited preconscious forms of regulation). their underlying affective versus cognitive processes are taken into consideration and are matched with classes of behavior associated Implications for Study Design with consummatory versus instrumental responses (cf. Ajzen & Fishbein, 1977). On the basis of neuroscientific research, implicit It follows from the theoretical implications listed above that evaluation is supported by subcortical mechanisms and is most future research will benefit from a careful selection of measures directly expressed in basic approach/withdrawal behaviors. By and response contexts when examining the effects of implicit bias contrast, implicit stereotyping is supported by neocortical net- on behavior. The results of the present work suggest that implicit works and is most directly expressed in biased cognitive process- evaluation corresponds most directly with consummatory re- ing. This analysis provides a theoretical basis for conceiving of sponses involving basic behavioral approach/withdrawal and that implicit stereotyping and evaluation as independent constructs and these effects should be strongest when behaviors involve minimal suggests refined definitions of these constructs that are rooted in controlled processing. By contrast, implicit stereotyping affects neural mechanisms of learning and memory. Furthermore, it sug- behavior by biasing cognitive processing and thus should be most gests that the effects of implicit stereotyping versus evaluation are evident on measures that involve a higher degree of cognitive likely to be expressed to different degrees in different situations processing, provided that participants are unaware of the poten- and on different assessments (Livingston & Brewer, 2002; Macrae, tially biasing effects. Bodenhausen, Milne, Thorn, & Castelli, 1997). Although findings to date regarding the effect of implicit race bias on behavior are notoriously mixed, many null effects reported in the literature may Future Directions have resulted from a mismatch between forms of implicit bias with Joint Effects of Implicit and Explicit Race Bias outcome measures of discrimination. Although we went to great lengths to distinguish effects of implicit Implications for Theory stereotyping from those of implicit evaluation in the present work, these two forms of bias typically operate in concert. An important new To date, theories of implicit race bias have not addressed the theoretical issue concerns the interplay of implicit stereotyping and possibility that implicit forms of stereotyping and evaluation may implicit evaluation: When and how do they operate in concert? For arise from distinct underlying processes and may affect behavior example, behaviors that combine elements of consummatory and 660 AMODIO AND DEVINE instrumental responses may be best predicted by the joint effects of References implicit stereotyping and prejudice. Additionally, there are many situations in which explicit measures of prejudice and stereotyping Ajzen, I., & Fishbein, M. (1977). Attitude– behavior relations: A theoret- ical analysis and review of empirical research. Psychological Bulletin, may be better predictors of behavior. Finally, although levels of 84, 888 –918. implicit stereotyping and evaluation were not correlated in our sam- Allport, G. W. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison- ples, these two forms of implicit bias may be more strongly correlated Wesley. among some groups of individuals (e.g., highly biased individuals) Amodio, D. M., & Frith, C. D. (2006). Meeting of minds: The role of the than others. Future research is needed to explore how the full range of medial frontal cortex in social cognition. Nature Reviews Neuroscience, discriminatory behavior may be explained by complex interactions 1, 268 –277. among implicit and explicit forms of prejudice and stereotyping for Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Devine, P. G. (2003). Individual differences in the activation and control of affective race bias as assessed different groups of people. by startle eye blink responses and self-report. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 738 –753. Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., Devine, P. G., Curtin, J. J., Hartley, Regulatory Mechanisms for Implicit Stereotyping Versus S. L., & Covert, A. E. (2004). Neural signals for the detection of Implicit Evaluative Race Bias unintentional race bias. Psychological Science, 15, 88 –93. Amodio, D. M., Kubota, J. T., Harmon-Jones, E., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Our findings raise new questions as to whether the behavioral Alternative mechanisms for regulating racial responses according to effects of implicit stereotyping and evaluation may be regulated via internal vs. external cues. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience, different processes and whether either form of implicit bias is more 1, 26 –36. difficult to regulate. It is likely that regulation occurs at several Ashburn-Nardo, L., Knowles, M. L., & Monteith, M. J. (2003). Black different levels. For example, the spreading activation of automatic Americans’ implicit racial associations and their implications for inter- group judgment. Social Cognition, 21, 61– 87. stereotypes within a semantic network could be inhibited via lateral Bartholow, B. D., Fabiani, M., Gratton, G., & Bettencourt, B. A. (2001). A inhibition (Bodenhausen & Macrae, 1998). Alternatively, the effects psychophysiological analysis of cognitive processing of and affective re- of implicit stereotypes may be inhibited in behavioral channels, such sponses to social expectancy violations. Psychological Science, 12, 197–204. that a stereotype-congruent response tendency is overridden by a Bechara, A., Damasio, H., & Damasio, A. R. (2003). Role of the amygdala deliberative unbiased response (Amodio et al., 2004). Implicit evalu- in decision-making. Annual Review of Neuroscience, 985, 356 –369. ation associated with amygdala activation may be inhibited by the Blair, I. (2001). Implicit stereotypes and prejudice. In G. Moskowitz (Ed.), countervailing activation of reward structures in the brain, or its effect Cognitive social psychology: On the tenure and future of social cogni- tion (pp. 359 –374). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. on behavior may be overridden via controlled processes as a behav- Bodenhausen, G. V., & Macrae, C. N. (1998). Stereotype activation and ioral response is formed. The inhibition of implicit stereotyping and inhibition. In R. S. Wyer, Jr. (Ed.), Advances in social cognition (Vol. evaluation effects at the response-formation level likely rely on the 11, pp. 1–52). Mahwah, NJ: Erlbaum. same frontal cortical mechanisms of control (Amodio et al., 2004; Bouton, M. E. (1994). Conditioning, remembering, and forgetting. Journal Amodio, Kubota, Harmon-Jones, & Devine, 2006). On the other of Experimental Psychology: Animal Behavior Processes, 20, 219 –231. hand, the inhibition of stereotypes within a neocortical semantic Cacioppo, J. T., Gardner, W. L., & Berntson, G. G. (1999). The affect system network and evaluations within a subcortical affective network rely has parallel and integrative processing components: Form follows function. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 76, 839 – 855. on different mechanisms, and thus the parameters of regulation may Damasio, A. D. (1994). Descartes’ error: Emotion, reason, and the human vary considerably. The present theoretical analysis highlights some brain. New York: Avon. previously unexplored complexities regarding mechanisms for regu- Davis, M., & Whalen, P. J. (2001). The amygdala: Vigilance and emotion. lating the effects of implicit race bias. Molecular Psychiatry, 6, 13–34. Devine, P. G. (1989). Prejudice and stereotypes: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Conclusion 56, 5–18. Devine, P. G. (2001). Implicit prejudice and stereotyping: How automatic Affect and cognition represent two fundamental processes of the are they? Introduction to the special section. Journal of Personality and human mind, and the distinction between affective and cognitive Social Psychology, 81, 757–759. processes is critical for the understanding of a wide range of Devine, P. G., & Elliot, A. J. (1995). Are racial stereotypes really fading? psychological functions (Cacioppo et al., 1999). On the basis of The Princeton Trilogy revisited. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 21, 1139 –1150. past social psychological and neuroscientific theories, we showed Devine, P. G., Plant, E. A., Amodio, D. M., Harmon-Jones, E., & Vance, that cognitive and affective components of implicit race bias are S. L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: The role conceptually independent and are uniquely predictive of instru- of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal of Personality and mental and consummatory forms of race-biased behaviors, respec- Social Psychology, 82, 835– 848. tively. The present work is also notable in that we took a social Dovidio, J., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. neuroscientific approach: We applied neurocognitive models of (1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled processes. learning and memory to elucidate social psychological conceptions Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33, 510 –540. Dovidio, J. F., Brigham, J. C., Johnson, B. T., & Gaertner, S. L. (1996). of implicit processes that had been poorly defined. Our findings Stereotyping, prejudice and discrimination: Another look. In C. N. suggest that greater conceptual clarity in implicit race bias research McCrae, C. Stangor, & M. Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyp- may be achieved by considering the differential effects of implicit ing (pp. 276 –319). New York: Guilford. stereotyping and evaluation when interpreting extant findings, Dovidio, J. F., Esses, V. M., Beach, K. R., & Gaertner, S. L. (2004). The developing new theories, and designing future research. role of affect in determining intergroup behavior: The case of willing-  IMPLICIT STEREOTYPING VS. EVALUATIVE RACE BIAS 661 ness to engage in intergroup affect. In D. M. Mackie & E. R. Smith Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., Thorn, T. M. J., & (Eds.), From prejudice to intergroup emotions: Differentiated reactions Castelli, L. (1997). On the activation of social stereotypes: The moder- to social groups (pp. 153–171). Philadelphia: Psychology Press. ating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Dovidio, J. F., Evans, N., & Tyler, R. B. (1986). Racial stereotypes: The Psychology, 33, 471– 489. contents of their cognitive representations. Journal of Experimental Malpass, R. S., Lavigueur, H., & Weldon, D. E. (1973). Verbal and visual Social Psychology, 22, 22–37. training in face recognition. Perception and Psychophysics, 14, 285–292. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., & Gaertner, S. L. (2002). Implicit and McConahay, J. B., & Hough, J. C. (1976). Symbolic racism. Journal of explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. Journal of Personality and Social Issues, 32, 23– 45. Social Psychology, 82, 62– 68. McConnell, A. R., & Leibold, J. M. (2001). Relations among the Implicit Esses, V. M., & Dovidio, J. F. (2002). The role of emotions in determining Association Test, discriminatory behavior, and explicit measures of racial willingness to engage in intergroup contact. Personality and Social attitudes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435– 442. Psychology Bulletin, 28, 1202–1214. Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1986). Effects of affective and cognitive focus Fazio, R., Jackson, J., Dunton, B., & Williams, C. (1995). Variability in on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Personality and Social automatic activation as an unobtrusive measure of racial attitudes: A Psychology, 51, 270 –276. bona fide pipeline? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69, Millar, M. G., & Tesser, A. (1989). The effects of affective-cognitive 1013–1027. consistency and thought on the attitude-behavior relation. Journal of Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition Experimental Social Psychology, 25, 189 –202. research: Their meaning and uses. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, Moreno, K. N., & Bodenhausen, G. V. (2001). Intergroup affect and social 297–327. judgment: Feelings as inadmissible information. Group Processes and Feldman, S., Conforti, N., & Weidenfeld, J. (1995). Limbic pathways and Intergroup Relations, 4, 21–29. hypothalamic neurotransmitters mediating adrenocortical responses to Park, B. & Judd, C. M. (2005). Rethinking the link between categorization neural stimuli. Neuroscience and Biobehavioral Reviews, 19, 235–240. and prejudice within the social cognition perspective. Personality and Fiske, S. T. (1998). Stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. In D. T. Social Psychology Review, 9, 108 –130. Gilbert, S. T. Fiske, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), The handbook of social Phelps, E. A., O’Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, S., psychology (Vol. 2, pp. 357– 411). New York: McGraw-Hill. Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2000). Performance on Gabrieli, J. D. (1998). Cognitive neuroscience of human memory. Annual indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Jour- Review of Psychology, 49, 87–115. nal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12, 729 –738. Greenwald, A., McGhee, D., & Schwartz, J. (1998). Measuring individual Rissman, J., Eliassen, J. C., & Blumstein, S. E. (2003). An event-related differences in implicit cognition: The Implicit Association Test. Journal fMRI investigation of implicit semantic priming. Journal of Cognitive of Personality and Social Psychology, 74, 1464 –1480. Neuroscience, 15, 1160 –1175. Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition. Rudman, L. A., Ashmore, R. D., & Gary, M. L. (2001). “Unlearning” Psychological Review, 102, 4 –27. automatic biases: The malleability of implicit stereotypes and prejudice. Greenwald, A. G., Banaji, M. R., Rudman, L. A., Farnham, S. D., Nosek, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81, 856 – 868. B. A., & Mellott, D. S. (2002). A unified theory of implicit attitudes, Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Review, 109, 3–25. self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Understanding share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27, and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An improved scoring algo- 1164 –1178. rithm. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85, 197–216. Spencer, S. J., Fein, S., Wolfe, C. T., Fong, C., & Dunn, M. A. (1998). Hamilton, D. L. (1981). Stereotyping and intergroup behavior: Some Automatic activation of stereotypes: The role of self-image threat. Per- thoughts on the cognitive approach. In D. L. Hamilton (Ed.), Cognitive sonality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, 1139 –1152. processes in stereotyping and intergroup behavior (pp. 333–353). Hills- Squire, L. R., & Zola, S. M. (1996). Structure and function of declarative dale, NJ: Erlbaum. and nondeclarative memory systems. Proceedings of the National Acad- Kawakami, K., Dion, K. L., & Dovidio, J. F. (1998). Racial prejudice and emy of Sciences of the USA, 93, 13515–13522. stereotype activation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 24, Stangor, C., Sullivan, L. A., & Ford, T. E. (1991). Affective and cognitive 407– 416. determinants of prejudice. Social Cognition, 9, 359 –380. Lang, P. J., Bradley, M. M., & Cuthbert, B. N. (1990). Emotion, attention, Wilson, T., Lindsey, S., & Schooler, T. (2000). A model of dual attitudes. and the startle reflex. Psychological Review, 97, 377–395. Psychological Review, 107, 101–126. LeDoux, J. E. (2000). Emotion circuits in the brain. Annual Review of Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial Neuroscience, 23, 155–184. prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire Lepore, L., & Brown, R. (1997). Category and stereotype activation: Is measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, 262–274. prejudice inevitable? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72, Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (2001). Evaluative versus con- 275–287. ceptual judgments in automatic attitude activation. Journal of Experi- Livingston, R. W., & Brewer, M. B. (2002). What are we really priming? mental Social Psychology, 37, 244 –252. Cue-based versus category-based processing of facial stimuli. Journal of Zajonc, R. B. (1980). Feeling and thinking: Preferences need no inferences. Personality and Social Psychology, 82, 5–18. American Psychologist, 35, 151–175. Mackie, D. M., & Smith, E. R. (1998). Intergroup relations: Insights from a theoretically integrative approach. Psychological Review, 105, 499 –529. Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out Received April 29, 2004 of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of Revision received January 9, 2006 Personality and Social Psychology, 67, 808 – 817. Accepted January 27, 2006 䡲