Societal and Managerial Implications of Implicit Social Cognition: Why Milliseconds Matter

Chugh, Dolly

doi:10.1023/b:sore.0000027410.26010.40

Cited by 105 publications

(71 citation statements)

References 52 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Unclassified

Order By: Relevance

“…But, System 2 logic should be used for more important decisions, and for decisions with ethical import. Yet, the frantic pace of many of our lives leads us to rely on System 1 thinking, even when System 2 thinking is warranted (Chugh, 2004). Mead et al (2009) found that cognitively busy study participants were more likely to behave unethically than less cognitively busy study participants (for additional empirical support, see Gino et al, 2011).…”

Section: Iii1 Changing Individual Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty

Bazerman¹,

Gino²

2012

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

250

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Early research and teaching on ethics focused either on a moral development perspective or on philosophical approaches and used a normative approach by focusing on the question of how people should act when resolving ethical dilemmas. In this article, we briefly describe the traditional approach to ethics and then present a (biased) review of the behavioral approach to ethics. We define behavioral ethics as the study of systematic and predictable ways in which individuals make ethical decisions and judge the ethical decisions of others when these decisions are at odds with intuition and the benefits of the broader society. By focusing on a descriptive rather than a normative approach to ethics, behavioral ethics is better suited than traditional approaches to addressing the increasing demand from society for a deeper understanding of what causes even good people to cross ethical boundaries.

show abstract

Section: Iii1 Changing Individual Moralitymentioning

confidence: 99%

Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty

Bazerman¹,

Gino²

2012

Annu. Rev. Law. Soc. Sci.

250

157

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The text of the article suggests that both men and women participated in the study, but there was no breakdown of participants by sex nor was a test for sex differences reported. 4 As Chugh (2004) noted, the second interaction differed significantly from the first interaction: Whereas the first interaction raised no racial issues, the second interaction involved a Black experimenter explicitly asking White participants race-related questions after the participants had completed the race IAT. Chugh incorrectly stated, however, that judges in McConnell and Leibold (2001) were blind to the race of the experimenter; in fact, McConnell and Leibold's procedure section makes clear that judges viewed both the participant and experimenter.…”

mentioning

confidence: 99%

Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT.

Blanton

Jaccard

Klick

et al. 2009

Journal of Applied Psychology

263

242

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The authors reanalyzed data from 2 influential studies-A. R. McConnell and J. M. Leibold (2001) and J. C. Ziegert and P. J. Hanges (2005)-that explore links between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior and that have been invoked to support strong claims about the predictive validity of the Implicit Association Test. In both of these studies, the inclusion of race Implicit Association Test scores in regression models reduced prediction errors by only tiny amounts, and Implicit Association Test scores did not permit prediction of individual-level behaviors. Furthermore, the results were not robust when the impact of rater reliability, statistical specifications, and/or outliers were taken into account, and reanalysis of A. R. McConnell & J. M. Leibold (2001) revealed a pattern of behavior consistent with a pro-Black behavioral bias, rather than the anti-Black bias suggested in the original study.Keywords: Implicit Association Test, predictive validity, discrimination, implicit biasThe Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee & Schwartz, 1998) has become one of psychology's most popular exports to the wider social sciences and the law (e.g., Lane, Kang, & Banaji, 2007). The measure's popularity is easy to grasp: IAT researchers often inform test takers they harbor implicit or unconscious biases toward minorities that many test takers disavow at a conscious level (Dasgupta, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2003). According to the much-visited Project Implicit Web site, without constant vigilance these implicit biases may lead to unwanted behaviors:People who hold egalitarian conscious attitudes in the face of automatic White preferences may [be] able to function in nonprejudiced fashion partly by making active efforts to prevent their automatic White preference from producing discriminatory behavior. However, when they relax these active efforts, these nonprejudiced people may be likely to show discrimination in thought or behavior. (IAT Corporation, n.d., Question 16) It is this claimed connection between implicit attitudes and discrimination that can make IAT feedback particularly disturbing to test takers. It also is the feature that makes research on the IAT of broad interdisciplinary interest. If the race IAT reliably predicts discriminatory behavior that cannot be consciously controlled, then society should take note. As but one example, the great majority of White Americans who have taken the IAT have been classified as anti-Black. This then points to an epidemic, either of unconscious racism (Greenwald & Krieger, 2006) or of falsepositive accusations of unconscious racism (Mitchell & Tetlock, 2006).Given the importance of the link between IAT scores and behavior, one might expect to find a large body of data establishing this connection-indeed, Greenwald and Krieger (2006, p. 961) described the evidence that implicit bias leads to discriminatory behavior as "already substantial." In fact, researchers in only a few studies have examined the ability of the IAT to predict behavior of any type, and resear...

show abstract

“…Nevertheless, upon visual and auditive perception of these features, everyone is classi ed almost immediately as adept or inept in certain tasks and as free of, or subject to, certain norms, duties and expectations. Everyone including, certainly, employers and employees knows this, if only unwittingly (Chugh 2004). People carry a wealth of social knowledge triggered by the physical cues of their phenotype.…”

Section: Traditional Notions: Ethnic Segregation and Gender Segregationmentioning

confidence: 99%

The joint effect of ethnicity and gender on occupational segregation. An approach based on the Mutual Information Index

Guinea-Martín

Mora

Ruiz‐Castillo

2015

Social Science Research

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

This article studies the effects of gender and ethnicity on occupational segregation. The traditional approach to this topic measures the two sources of segregation separately. In contrast, we measure the joint effect of gender and ethnicity by applying a multigroup segregation index-the Mutual Information or M index-to the product of the two genders and seven ethnic groups distinguished in our census data for England and Wales in 2001. We exploit M's strong group decomposability property to consistently pose the following two questions: (i) How much does each source contribute to occupational segregation, controlling for the effect of the other? (ii) Is the combined impact of gender and ethnicity greater than, equal to, or smaller than the sum of their individual effects? The main empirical findings are the following two. First, we confirm previous results showing the greater importance of gender over ethnicity as a source of occupational segregation. However, we find that ethnicity contributes 13.5 percent of overall segregation in geographical areas where minorities concentrate. Second, contrary to intersectionality theories, we find that there is a small, "dwindling" interaction effect between the two sources of segregation: ethnicity slightly weakens the segregative power of gender, and vice versa.

show abstract

Societal and Managerial Implications of Implicit Social Cognition: Why Milliseconds Matter

Cited by 105 publications

References 52 publications

Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty

Behavioral Ethics: Toward a Deeper Understanding of Moral Judgment and Dishonesty

Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT.

The joint effect of ethnicity and gender on occupational segregation. An approach based on the Mutual Information Index

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About