A model concerning the establishment and operation of cues for control was developed and tested to understand how control can be exerted over (automatic) prejudiced responses. Cues for control are stimuli that are associated with prejudiced responses and the aversive consequences of those responses (e.g., guilt). In Experiments 1 and 2, 3 events critical to the establishment of cues occurred: behavioral inhibition, the experience of guilt, and retrospective reflection. In Experiment 3, the presentation of already-established cues for control did, as expected, produce behavioral inhibition. In Experiment 4, participants were provided with an experience in which cues could be established. Later presentation of those cues in a different task resulted in behavioral inhibition and less racially biased responses.

No abstract

Many-though not all-black Americans exhibit an implicit evaluative preference for whites relative to blacks (e.g., Livingston, 2002). Are such biases meaningfully related to blacks' explicit attitudes and actual intergroup judgments? In the present study, 83 black participants who believed they would complete an intellectually challenging task with a partner rated their preferences for (fictitious) black and white potential partners. The less strongly participants implicitly preferred their ingroup, the lower their preference for a black vs. a white work partner. The magnitude of this relationship held even when controlling for explicit attitudes that were related to partner preference. Implicit biases were associated with explicit attitudes regarding black, but not white, persons and with system-justifying ideology (Jost & Banaji, 1994).

Colloquium talks at prestigious universities both create and reflect academic researchers' reputations. Gender disparities in colloquium talks can arise through a variety of mechanisms. The current study examines gender differences in colloquium speakers at 50 prestigious US colleges and universities in 2013-2014. Using archival data, we analyzed 3,652 talks in six academic disciplines. Men were more likely than women to be colloquium speakers even after controlling for the gender and rank of the available speakers. Eliminating alternative explanations (e.g., women declining invitations more often than men), our follow-up data revealed that female and male faculty at top universities reported no differences in the extent to which they () valued and () turned down speaking engagements. Additional data revealed that the presence of women as colloquium chairs (and potentially on colloquium committees) increased the likelihood of women appearing as colloquium speakers. Our data suggest that those who invite and schedule speakers serve as gender gatekeepers with the power to create or reduce gender differences in academic reputations.