||This article may be too technical for most readers to understand. (July 2011) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
An implicit stereotype is the unconscious attribution of particular qualities to a member of a certain social group. Implicit stereotypes are influenced by experience, and are based on learned associations between various qualities and social categories, including race or gender. Individuals' perceptions and behaviors can be affected by implicit stereotypes, even without the individuals' intention or awareness. Implicit stereotypes are an aspect of implicit social cognition, the phenomenon that perceptions, attitudes, and stereotypes operate without conscious intention. The existence of implicit stereotypes is supported by a variety of scientific articles in psychological literature. Implicit stereotype were first defined by psychologists Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji in 1995.
Explicit stereotypes are the result of intentional, conscious, and controllable thoughts and beliefs. Explicit stereotypes usually are directed toward a group of people based on what is being perceived. An explicit stereotype example would be that all adolescent girls like to play with dolls and makeup.
Implicit stereotypes are associations learned through past experiences. Implicit stereotypes can be activated by the environment, and operate outside of intentional conscious cognition. For example, we can unconsciously stereotype all pitbulls as being dangerous. This stereotype may be associated with one event that we may have seen in the past, but the source of these associations may be misidentified, or even unknown by the individual who holds them, and can persist even when an individual rejects the stereotype explicitly.
- 1 Stereotype versus attitude and prejudice
- 2 Methods for investigation
- 3 Differences between measures
- 4 Findings
- 5 Positive aspects of stereotypes
- 6 Summary
- 7 See also
- 8 References
- 9 External links
Stereotype versus attitude and prejudice
Our feelings and experiences can dictate how we look at the world. These can also become beneficial to us in the future because if we know what to avoid and how that made us feel, we can run or fight if we need to. An attitude, stereotypes, and prejudices are all things that can influence our behavior and feelings toward an individual or group.
An attitude is an evaluative judgment of an object, a person, or a social group. We can form an attitude toward soccer players. We can have many different types of attitudes toward soccer players that can either be positive or negative.
A stereotype is the association of a person or a social group with a consistent set of traits. This may include both positive and negative traits, such as African Americans are great at sports or African Americans are more violent than any other race in the United States. There are many types of stereotypes that exists: racial, cultural, gender, group (i.e. college students), all being very explicit in the lives of many people.
Prejudice is defined as unfair negative attitude toward a social group or a member of that group. Prejudices can stem from many of the things that people observe in a different social group that include, but are not limited to, gender, sex, race/ethnicity, or religion. This is pertinent to stereotypes because a stereotype can influence the way people feel toward another group, hence prejudice.
Methods for investigation
Implicit stereotypes cannot be revealed by asking individuals direct questions. This is because individuals may be unaware they hold an implicit stereotype, they may not endorse the stereotype, or they may be unwilling to reveal they endorse the stereotype. Thus, implicit measures are necessary to tap implicit stereotypes.
The implicit-association test (IAT) measures differential associations of two target concepts. Subjects are instructed to press a button when they see an item (an image or word) that represents a particular concept, and a different button for items that represent another concept. For instance, a subject may press button A for words related to weakness and button B for words related to strength. Then subjects may be instructed to press button A for male words (he, boy) and button B for female words (she, girl). To test differential association between these two concepts (in this example, strength/weakness and gender), these two tasks would be combined. First, subjects would press button A for strength or male, and button B for weakness and female; then they would press button A for strength and female, and button B for weakness and male. Differential reaction time to each task may reveal implicit endorsement of that stereotype. For example, if a subject's reaction time is faster when male is paired with science and female is paired with arts, this suggests the subject more strongly associates males with science than females.
Go/no-go association task (GNAT)
The GNAT is similar to the implicit-association test. Although the IAT reveals differential associations of two target concepts (e.g. male-female and weak-strong), the GNAT reveals associations within one concept (for example, whether female is associated more strongly with weak or strong). Participants are presented with word pairs among distractors. Participants are instructed to indicate "go" if the words are target pairs, or "no-go" if they are not. For example, participants may be instructed to indicate "go" if the word pairs are female names and words that are related to strength. Then, participants are instructed to indicate "go" if the word pairs are female names and words that are related to weakness. This method relies on signal detection theory; participants' accuracy rates reveal endorsement of the implicit stereotype. For example, if participants are more accurate for female-weak pairs than for female-strong pairs, this suggests the subject more strongly associates weakness with females than strength.
Semantic priming and lexical decision task
Semantic priming measures the association between two concepts. In a lexical decision task, subjects are presented with pair of words, and asked to indicate whether the pair are words (for example, "butter") or non-words (for example, "tubter"). The theory behind semantic priming is that subjects are quicker to respond to a word if preceded by a word related to it in meaning (e.g. bread-butter vs. bread-dog). In other words, the word "bread" primes other words related in meaning, including butter. Psychologists utilize semantic priming to reveal implicit associations between stereotypic-congruent words. For instance, participants may be asked to indicate whether pronouns are male or female. These pronouns are either preceded by professions that are predominantly female ("secretary, nurse"), or male ("mechanic, doctor"). Reaction times reveal strength of association between professions and gender.
In a sentence completion task, subjects may be presented with sentences that contain stereotypic black and white names (Jerome, Adam), positive and negative stereotypic black behaviors (easily made the team, blasted loud music in his car) and counter-stereotypic behaviors (got a job at Microsoft, refused to dance). Subjects are asked to add to the end of a sentence in any way that is grammatical, e.g. "Jerome got an A on his test..." could be completed with "because it was easy" (stereotypic-congruent) or "because he studied for months" (stereotypic-incongruent) or "and then he went out to celebrate" (non-explanatory). This task is used to measure stereotypic explanatory bias (SEB): participants have a larger SEB if they give more explanations for stereotype-congruent sentences than stereotype–incongruent sentences, and if they give more stereotypic-congruent explanations.
Differences between measures
There is a difference between these measurements which involves measures of activation vs. measures of association. Measures of association are involved with the Implicit Association Task and Semantic priming. This is a measure of association because they are normally given choices and they are measured based on the association between them and the choices in the task. What they choose is associated to their previous experience because they are usually choosing between a pair; or more choices. However measures of activation which includes word completion and unprimed lexical decision tasks are both associated with activating the implicit stereotype. This means that although the person that is being involved in the research may not be aware what they are being measured on, they are measured based on the activation of a stereotype at that time. This can also be associated with previous experiences but can change previous thoughts based on the activation of potentially new implicit stereotypes.
The category of male has been found to be associated with traits of strength and achievement. Both male and female subjects associate male category members more strongly than female category members with words like bold, mighty, and power. The strength of this association is not predicted by explicit beliefs, such as responses on a gender stereotype questionnaire (for example, one question asked if subjects endorsed the word feminist). In a test to reveal the false fame effect, nonfamous male names are more likely to be falsely identified as famous than nonfamous female names; this is evidence for an implicit stereotype of male achievement. Females are more associated with weakness. This is true for both male and female subjects, but female subjects only show this association when the weak words are positive, such as fine, flower and gentle; female subjects do not show this pattern when the weak words are negative, such as feeble, frail, and scrawny.
Particular professions are implicitly associated with genders. Elementary school teachers are implicitly stereotyped to be female, and engineers are stereotyped to be male.
Gender stereotypes in science and engineering
Implicit-association tests reveal an implicit association for male with science and math, and females with arts and language. Girls as young as nine years old have been found to hold an implicit male-math stereotype and an implicit preference for language over math. Women have stronger negative associations with math than men do, and the stronger females associate with a female gender identity, the more implicit negativity they have towards math. For both men and women, the strength of these implicit stereotypes predicts both implicit and explicit math attitudes, belief in one's math ability, and SAT performance. The strength of these implicit stereotypes in elementary-aged girls predicts academic self-concepts, academic achievement, and enrollment preferences, even more than do explicit measures. Women with a stronger implicit gender-math stereotype were less likely to pursue a math-related career, regardless of their actual math ability or explicit gender-math stereotypes. This may be because women with stronger implicit gender-math stereotypes are more at risk for stereotype threat. Thus, women with strong implicit stereotypes perform much worse on a math test when primed with gender than women who have weak implicit stereotypes.
Though the number of women pursuing and earning degrees in engineering has increased in the last 20 years, women are below men at all degree levels in all fields of engineering.  These implicit gender stereotypes are robust; in a study of more than 500,000 respondents from 34 nations, more than 70% of individuals held this implicit stereotype. The national strength of the implicit stereotype is related to national sex differences among 8th graders on the International TIMSS, a worldwide math &science standardized achievement exam. This effect is present even after statistically controlling for gender inequality in general. Additionally, for women across cultures, studies have shown individual differences in strength of this implicit stereotype is associated with interest, participation and performance in sciences. Extending to the professional world, implicit biases and subsequent explicit attitudes toward women can "negatively affect the education, hiring, promotion, and retention of women in STEM". 
The effects of such implicit biases can be seen in across multiple studies including:
- Parents rate the math abilities of their daughters lower than parents with sons who perform identically well in school 
- College faculty are less likely to respond to inquiries about research opportunities if the email appears to be from a woman as opposed to an identical email from a man 
- Science faculty are less likely to hire or mentor students they believe are women as opposed to men 
An interagency report from the Office of Science and Technology Policy and Office of Personnel Management has investigated systemic barriers including implicit biases that have traditionally inhibited particularly women and underrepresented minorities in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) and makes recommendations for reducing the impact of bias. Research has shown that implicit bias training may improve attitudes towards women in STEM. 
In lexical decision tasks, after subjects are subliminally primed with the word BLACK, they are quicker to react to words consistent with black stereotypes, such as athletic, musical, poor and promiscuous. When subjects are subliminally primed with WHITE, they are quicker to react to white stereotypes, such as intelligent, ambitious, uptight and greedy. These tendencies are sometimes, but not always, associated with explicit stereotypes.
People may also hold an implicit stereotype that associates black category members as violent. People primed with words like ghetto, slavery and jazz were more likely to interpret a character in a vignette as hostile. However, this finding is controversial; because the character's race was not specified, it is suggested that the procedure primed the race-unspecified concept of hostility, and did not necessarily represent stereotypes. An implicit stereotype of violent black men may associate black men with weapons. In a video game where subjects were supposed to shoot men with weapons and not shoot men with ordinary objects, subjects were more likely to shoot a black man with an ordinary object than a white man with an ordinary object. This tendency was related to subjects' implicit attitudes toward black people. Similar results were found in a priming task; subjects who saw a black face immediately before either a weapon or an ordinary object more quickly and accurately identified the image as a weapon than when it was preceded by a white face.
Implicit race stereotypes affect behaviors and perceptions. When choosing between pairs of questions to ask a black interviewee, one of which is congruent with racial stereotype, people with a high stereotypic explanatory bias (SEB) are more likely to ask the racially congruent stereotype question. In a related study, subjects with a high SEB rated a black individual more negatively in an unstructured laboratory interaction.
In-group and out-group bias
In-group favoritism, sometimes known as in-group–out-group bias, in-group bias, or intergroup bias, is a pattern of favoring members of one's in-group over out-group members. This can be expressed in evaluation of others, in allocation of resources, and in many other ways.
Implicit in-group preferences emerge very early in life, even in children as young as six years old. In-group bias wherein people who are ‘one of us’ (i.e., our ingroup) are favored compared to those in the outgroup, meaning those who differ from ourselves. Ingroup favoritism is associated with feelings of trust and positive regard for ingroup members and surfaces often on measures of implicit bias. We generally tend to hold implicit biases that favor our own ingroup, though research has shown that we can still hold implicit biases against our ingroup. This categorization (ingroup vs. outgroup) is often automatic and unconscious.
Research in implicit stereotypes is focused on gender and race stereotypes, but some other topics have been investigated. IATs have revealed implicit stereotypes reflecting explicit stereotypes about adolescents. Adolescents are more associated with words like trendy and defiant than adults. Similarly, IATs have revealed implicit stereotypes of obese individuals and low work performance. Words like lazy and incompetent are more associated with images of obese individuals than images of thin ones. This association is stronger for thin subjects than overweight ones. The democratic party is associated with feminine words including librarian, nurse, and skirt, while the republican party is associated with masculine words including janitor, trousers, and razors, regardless of subjects' political affiliation or gender. Like explicit stereotypes, implicit stereotypes may contain both positive and negative traits. People hold implicit stereotypes that preschool teachers are both warm and incompetent, while lawyers are both cold and competent.
Activation of implicit stereotypes
Stereotypes may be activated by environmental and situational factors. In the laboratory, implicit stereotypes can be activated by priming. When subjects are primed with dependence by unscrambling words such as dependent, cooperative, and passive, they judge a target female as more dependent. When subjects are primed with aggression with words like aggressive, confident, argumentative, they judge a target male as more aggressive. These kinds of differences in implicit activation that vary by the gender of the target suggest an implicit gender stereotype. Stereotypes can also be activated by a subliminal prime. White subjects exposed to subliminal words consistent with a black stereotype (ghetto, slavery, jazz) interpret a target male as more hostile, consistent with the implicit stereotype of hostile black man. However, this finding is controversial; because the character's race was not specified, it is suggested that the procedure primed the race-unspecified concept of hostility, and did not necessarily represent stereotypes.
Malleability of implicit stereotypes
Implicit stereotypes can, at least temporarily, be reduced or increased. Methods for altering implicit stereotypes fall under the following five categories.
Self and social motives
The activation of implicit stereotypes may be decreased when the individual is motivated to promote a positive self-image, either to oneself or to others in a social setting. Positive feedback from a black person decreases stereotypic sentence completion, while negative feedback from a black person increases it. Subjects also reveal lesser strength of race stereotypes when they feel others disagree with the stereotypes.
Implicit stereotypes can be reduced by exposure to counterstereotypes. Reading biographies of females in leadership roles (such as Meg Whitman, the CEO of eBay) increases females’ associations between female names and words like leader, determined, and ambitious in a gender stereotype IAT. Attending a women's college (where students are presumably more often exposed to women in leadership positions) reduces associations between leadership and males after one year of schooling. Merely imagining a strong woman reduces implicit association between females and weakness, and imagining storybook princesses increases the implicit association between females and weakness.
Focus of attention
Diverting a participant's focus of attention can reduce implicit stereotypes. Generally, female primes facilitate reaction time to stereotypical female traits when participants are instructed to indicate whether the prime is animate. When participants instead are instructed to indicate whether a white dot is present on the prime, this diverts their focus of attention from the primes’ feminine features. This successfully weakens the strength of the prime and thus weakening the strength of gender stereotypes.
Configuration of stimulus cues
Whether stereotypes are activated depends on the context. When presented with an image of a Chinese woman, Chinese stereotypes were stronger after seeing her use chopsticks, and female stereotypes were stronger after seeing her put on makeup.
Characteristics of individual category members
Stereotype activation may be stronger for some category members than for others. People express weaker gender stereotypes with unfamiliar than familiar names.
Positive aspects of stereotypes
Stereotypes provide many positive functions as well. Stereotypes ease the burden of information processing, also providing a functional aspect to social perseveres. Stereotypes can serve a data reduction function by providing expectancies that filter experience, directing attention, and other processing resources to expectancy- relevant information. Also they function by economizing cognition by enriching the information available about a stereotyped target. Lastly they enable us to go beyond the information given in social encounters and fill in any gaps in our extant knowledge base.
||This section may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. The specific problem is: the lead section should be the summary of the article; this section should be merged into the rest of this article (March 2015) (Learn how and when to remove this template message)|
Unconscious bias or usually known as implicit bias is a "positive or negative mental attitude towards a person, thing, or group that a person holds at an subconscious level". Based on a Stanford medical website, unconscious bias is believed to be established from our own interaction with other people in our society, as well as exposure from the media. Constant exposure to it will eventually develop as some kind of habit that we naturally perceive. Likewise, researchers Greenwald and Banaji in 1995 noted that someone’s social learning experiences such as observing parents, friends, or others could trigger this type of bias. Many studies have found that culture is, in fact, able to stimulate biases as well, both in a negative and positive way regardless someone’s personal experience with other cultures. As far as many people are concerned, implicit bias knows no age restriction and it can happen to anyone regardless of age. As a matter of fact, unconscious bias can be found in a six years-old child. Even though unconscious bias might be hard to notice, especially compared to explicit bias, it can still be measured through several procedures such as sequential priming, response competition, EDA, EMG, fMRI, ERP and ITA. Thus, once a person knows his or her level of bias, further action can be taken. Hence, the existence of implicit stereotypes is supported by a variety of articles in psychological literature. Adults and even children may hold implicit stereotypes of social categories in which they belong. Without intention, or even awareness, implicit stereotypes affect human behavior and judgments. This has wide-ranging implications for society, from discrimination, to personal career choices, and understanding others in everyday social interactions.
- Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102, 4–27.
- Gaertner, Brown, Sam, Rupert. Blackwell Handbook of Social Psychology: Intergroup Processes. Retrieved 11/08/2013. Check date values in:
- Crano, W.D., & Prislin, R. (2008). Attitudes and attitude change. New York: CRC Press.
- Gaertner, Samuel L.; John F. Dovidio (8/4/1999). "Reducing Prejudice: Combating Intergroup Biases". Check date values in:
- Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1684
- Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). The Go/No-go Association Task. Social Cognition, 19(6), 625–666. doi:10.1521/soco.19.6.625.20886
- Blair, I. V., Ma, J. E., & Lenton, A. P. (2001). Imagining stereotypes away: The moderation of implicit stereotypes through mental imagery. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), 828–841. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1248
- Meyer, D. E., and Schvaneveldt, R. W. (1971). Facilitation in recognizing pairs of words: Evidence of a dependence between retrieval operations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, 90, 227–234.
- Banaji, M. R., & Hardin, C. D. (1996). Automatic stereotyping. Psychological Science, 7(3), 136–141. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.1996.tb00346.x
- Sekaquaptewa, D., Espinoza, P., Thompson, M., Vargas, P., & von Hippel, W. (2003). Stereotypic explanatory bias: Implicit stereotyping as a predictor of discrimination. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 39(1), 75–82. doi:10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00512-7
- Rudman, L. A., Greenwald, A. G., & McGhee, D. E. (2001). Implicit self-concept and evaluative implicit gender stereotypes: Self and ingroup share desirable traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(9), 1164–1178. doi:10.1177/0146167201279009
- Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), 181–198. doi:10.1037/0022-35126.96.36.199
- White, M. J., & White, G. B. (2006). Implicit and explicit occupational gender stereotypes. Sex Roles, 55(3–4), 259–266. doi:10.1007/s11199-006-9078-z
- Nosek, B. A., Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2002). Math = male, me = female, therefore math ≠ me. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83(1), 44–59. doi:10.1037/0022-35188.8.131.52
- Steffens, M. C., Jelenec, P., & Noack, P. (2010). On the leaky math pipeline: Comparing implicit math-gender stereotypes and math withdrawal in female and male children and adolescents. Journal of Educational Psychology, doi:10.1037/a0019920
- Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit Stereotypes, Gender Identification, and Math-Related Outcomes: A Prospective Study of Female College Students. Psychological Science, 18(1), 13–18. doi:10.1111/j.1467-9280.2007.01841.x
- Kiefer, A. K., & Sekaquaptewa, D. (2007). Implicit stereotypes and women's math performance: How implicit gender-math stereotypes influence women's susceptibility to stereotype threat. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 43(5), 825–832. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2006.08.004
- "Women, Minorities, and Persons with Disabilities in Science and Engineering". National Science Foundation. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
- Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Sriram, N. N., Lindner, N. M., Devos, T., Ayala, A., & ... Greenwald, A. G. (2009). National differences in gender–science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. PNAS Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 106(26), 10593-10597. doi:10.1073/pnas.0809921106
- Jackson, Sarah M.; Hillard, Amy; Schneider, Tamara R. (May 11, 2011). "Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM" (PDF). Social Psychology of Education. 17 (1): 1–23. doi:10.1007/s11218-014-9259-5. Retrieved March 31, 2017.
- Yee, D.K.; Eccles, J.S. (1988). "Parent perceptions and attributions for children's math achievement". Sex Roles. 19: 317-333.
- Milkman, KL; Akinola, M; Chugh, D (2015 Nov). "What happens before? A field experiment exploring how pay and representation differentially shape bias on the pathway into organizations.". Journal of Applied Psychology. 100 (6): 1678-712. doi:10.1037/apl0000022. Retrieved 31 March 2017. Check date values in:
- Moss-Racusin, C.A.; Dovidio, J.F. (2012). "Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students". National Academy of Science. 109: 16474-17479.
- Handelsman, Jo; Ward, Wanda. "Increasing Diversity in the STEM Workforce by Reducing the Impact of Bias". The White House. Retrieved 31 March 2017.
- Wittenbrink, B., Judd, C. M., & Park, B. (1997). Evidence for racial prejudice at the implicit level and its relationship with questionnaire measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(2), 262–274. doi:10.1037/0022-35184.108.40.2062
- Gaertner, S. L., & McLaughlin, J. P. (1983). Racial stereotypes: Associations and ascriptions of positive and negative characteristics. Social Psychology Quarterly, 46, 23–30.
- Devine, P. G. (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5–18.
- Aronson, E., Wilson, T. D., & Akert, R. (2010). Social psychology. 7th ed. Upper Saddle River: Prentice Hall.
- Taylor, Donald M.; Doria, Janet R. (April 1981). "Self-serving and group-serving bias in attribution". Journal of Social Psychology. 113 (2): 201–211. ISSN 0022-4545. doi:10.1080/00224545.1981.9924371.
- Dunham, Y., Baron, A. S., & Banaji, M. R. (2008). The Development of Implicit Intergroup Cognition. Trends in Cognitive Sciences, 12(7), 248–253.
- Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit Bias: Scientific Foundations. California Law Review, 94(4), 945–967.
- Reskin, B. (2005). Unconsciousness Raising. Regional Review, 14(3), 32–37.
- Reskin, B. (2000). The Proximate Causes of Employment Discrimination. Contemporary Sociology, 29(2), 319–328.
- Gross, E. F., & Hardin, C. D. (2007). Implicit and explicit stereotyping of adolescents. Social Justice Research, 20(2), 140–160. doi:10.1007/s11211-007-0037-9
- Agerström, J., & Rooth, D. (2011). The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, doi:10.1037/a0021594
- Schwartz, M. B., Vartanian, L. R., Nosek, B. A., & Brownell, K. D. (2006). The Influence of One's Own Body Weight on Implicit and Explicit Anti-fat Bias. Obesity, 14(3), 440–447. doi:10.1038/oby.2006.58
- Winter, Nicholas J.G. (December 2010). "Masculine Republicans and feminine Democrats: gender and Americans’ explicit and implicit images of the political parties". Political Behavior. Springer. 32 (4): 587–618. doi:10.1007/s11109-010-9131-z.
- Carlsson, Rickard; Björklund, Fredrick (2010). "Implicit stereotype content: mixed stereotypes can be measured with the implicit association test". Social Psychology. 41 (4): 213–222. doi:10.1027/1864-9335/a000029.
- Banaji, M. R., Hardin, C., & Rothman, A. J. (1993). Implicit stereotyping in person judgment. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 65(2), 272–281. doi:10.1037/0022-35220.127.116.112
- Blair, I. V. (2002). The malleability of automatic stereotypes and prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 6(3), 242–261. doi:10.1207/S15327957PSPR0603_8
- Sinclair, L., & Kunda, Z. (1999). Reactions to a Black professional: Motivated inhibition and activation of conflicting stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(5), 885–904. doi:10.1037/0022-3518.104.22.1685
- Stangor, C., Sechrist, G. B., & Jost, J. T. (2001). Changing racial beliefs by providing consensus information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27(4), 486–496. doi:10.1177/0146167201274009
- Dasgupta, N., & Asgari, S. (2004). Seeing is believing: Exposure to counterstereotypic women leaders and its effect on the malleability of automatic gender stereotyping. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 40(5), 642–658. doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2004.02.003
- Macrae, C., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., Thorn, T. J., & Castelli, L. (1997). On the activation of social stereotypes: The moderating role of processing objectives. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 33(5), 471–489. doi:10.1006/jesp.1997.1328
- Macrae, C., Bodenhausen, G. V., & Milne, A. B. (1995). The dissection of selection in person perception: Inhibitory processes in social stereotyping. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 69(3), 397–407. doi:10.1037/0022-3522.214.171.1247
- Macrae, C., Mitchell, J. P., & Pendry, L. F. (2002). What's in a forename? Cue familiarity and stereotypical thinking. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(2), 186–193. doi:10.1006/jesp.2001.1496
- Macrae, C., Stangor, C., Milne, A., (1994). Activating Social Stereotypes: A Functional Analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 370–389.
- "Implicit Bias".
- Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, Williams. "Implicit Bias".
- Baron and Banaji. "Implicit Bias".
- Project implicit Take Implicit Association Tests to reveal your own implicit attitudes and stereotypes, as well as contribute to the research as a participant.