Looking within to understand the outside: Exploring implicit attitudes

Transcription

1 SLS 1556 Looking within to understand the outside: Exploring implicit attitudes Fall 2018 Our minds are constantly deceiving us. Even when we look at a checkerboard, the same color of grey looks drastically different depending on its surroundings. We are constantly deceiving ourselves, too. The field of psychology has long studied human behavior. Yet, today, our words and actions tell two different stories, so the mind sciences have begun to explore another direction: our less conscious mind. Over the past 40 years, the field of implicit bias has emerged, using simple, automatic associations to look inside and discover what we have hidden from others and ourselves. This course has many goals, but in essence, it asks you to re-orient the way you think, and closely examine the literature surrounding implicit bias. Throughout the next few months, we will think about why humans hold biases, and how we can use our understanding of the ways our minds work to transform these biases, to better align our intentions with our actions. Course Instructors: Kirsten Morehouse <kirsten_morehouse@g.harvard.edu> Joe Vitriol <joe_vitriol@fas.harvard.edu> Mahzarin Banaji <mahzarin_banaji@harvard.edu> Learning Objectives: Cultivate deep and thoughtful thinking Develop clear, logical, and persuasive oral and written arguments Identify, understand, and describe key perspectives surrounding the measurement and theory of implicit attitudes Apply these theories to known and novel intervention techniques Critically read and interpret empirical methods and data Grading: 40% Weekly Reaction Papers 30% Final Project 15% Outsmarting Human Minds (OHM) 15% Education and Feedback Literature Search Required Texts: Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: the hidden biases of good people.

2 Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Weekly Reaction Papers: These brief (1-2 page single spaced) but thoughtful papers ask you to examine one study or finding from the week s reading that surprised you, excited you, or made you question, how could this be? Challenge yourself to think deeply, consider alternative explanations, and draw connections to other theories you ve encountered. Your audience for this paper is an educated, but uninformed individual. Write clearly and succinctly; don t make assumptions about background knowledge this person might have. This will force you to understand the study or finding at a deeper level. Final Project: Your final project will comprise of two parts. More specific details to come. a. This culminating project asks you to draw upon the myriad IAT education and feedback techniques you ve learned about this semester to develop a multi-study proposal. This proposal is designed to evaluate conditions under which the expression of bias is maximized and minimized. You will be asked to give a minute presentation in which you describe (a) the theoretical framework from which testable hypotheses were derived, (b) the logic of the methodology in your proposed study or studies, (c) expected pattern of results, and (d) theoretical and practical implications, if your hypotheses are confirmed. b. Create your own OHM module. This course has asked you to gain a deeper understanding of how the IAT works, what it measures, and how it can reveal biases we consciously reject. Nevertheless, the IAT is not without its critics. Your task is to create a module (this may be a video, podcast, or article) on the myths of the IAT. Track down the most pervasive myths of the IAT and use empirical research, theories, and your own connections of the former, to evaluate and potentially discredit these claims. Outsmarting Human Minds (OHM): OHM is a project founded by Professor Mahzarin Banaji that aims to bring together growing public desire to understand and improve decision-making with insights from the mind sciences. Throughout the semester, we will ask you to provide feedback on drafts of new modules in hopes of harnessing your creativity, strengthen your written abilities and expose you to the world of scientific communication. Intervention Literature Search: A current project in the Banaji lab is to map the consequences of IAT education and bias feedback: what have past studies tested, what kind of feedback (if any) was provided and when, and how did participants react? We will ask you to help build a body of knowledge about what has been done in the field already, and question what can or should be done in the future.

3 Tentative Course Outline Week 1: Illusions. The visual, perceptual, and ways we deceive ourselves. Bantam, p Loftus, E. F., & Palmer, J. C. (1974). Reconstruction of automobile destruction: An example of the interaction between language and memory. Journal of Verbal Learning and Verbal Behavior, 13(5), Watch: OHM s the Universe Inside module: 4. Try: 5. Skim AFTER #3: a. Bressan, P. (2001). Explaining lightness illusions. Perception, 30(9), Week 2: Explicit beliefs, then and now. Bantam, p Sears, D. O., & Henry, P. J. (2003). The origins of symbolic racism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 85(2), Pearson, A. R., Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2009). The nature of contemporary prejudice: Insights from aversive racism. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 3, Supplementary (read the abstracts): 4. Bobo, L. D. (2001). Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth century. Smelser, N.J., Wilson, W.J, Mitchell, F (eds), America Becoming: Racial Trends and Their Consequence (VOL 1.). DC: National Academy Press. 5. Crandall, C. S., Eshleman, A., & O'Brien, L. (2002). Social norms and the expression and suppression of prejudice: The struggle for internalization. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 82(3), 359. Week 3: Uncovering implicit evaluations. Bantam, p Blair, I. V., & Banaji, M. R. (1996). Automatic and controlled processes in stereotype priming. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70(6), Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit attitudes can be measured. In H. L. Roediger III, J. S. Nairne, & I. Neath (Eds.), The Nature of Remembering: Essays in Honor of Robert G. Crowder (pp ). Washington, D.C.: American Psychological Association. 4. Take a test.

4 5. Watch OHM s Implicit Revolution series: b. c. Week 4: Origins of Implicit Attitudes and Consequences of Bias Bantam, p , Allport, G. W., Clark, K., & Pettigrew, T. (1954). The nature of prejudice. Chapters Rudman, L. A. (2004). Sources of implicit attitudes. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 13(2), Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 68(2), Spencer, K. B., Charbonneau, A. K., & Glaser, J. (2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), Week 5: Implicit Measurement & the IAT. 1. Brendl, C. M., Markman, A. B., & Messner, C. (2001). How do indirect measures of evaluation work? Evaluating the inference of prejudice in the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(5), Dasgupta, N., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). The First Ontological Challenge to the IAT: Attitude or Mere Familiarity? Psychological Inquiry, 14(3-4), Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior, Hahn, A., Judd, C. M., Hirsh, H. K., & Blair, I. V. (2014). Awareness of implicit attitudes. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143, Rothermund, K., & Wentura, D. (2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 133(2), 139. Week 6: The IAT and its correlates. 1. Nosek, B. A., Smyth, F. L., Hansen, J. J., Devos, T., Lindner, N. M., Ranganath, K. A., et al. (2007). Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. European Review of Social Psychology, 18(1), Olson, M. A., & Fazio, R. H. (2003). Relations between implicit measures of prejudice: What are we measuring? Psychological Science, 14(6), Kurdi, B., Seitchik, A. E., Axt, J. R., Carroll, T. J., Karapetyan, A., Kaushik, N., Tomezsko, D., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (in press). Relationship between the Implicit

5 Association Test and intergroup behavior: A meta-analysis. American Psychologist. 4. Dovidio, J. F.,Kawakami, K., & Beach, K. R. (2008). Implicit and explicit attitudes: Examination of the relationship between measures of intergroup bias. Blackwell handbook of social psychology: Intergroup processes, 175. Week 7: Controlling Implicit Bias 1. Galinsky, A.D., & Moskowitz, G.B. (2007). Further ironies of suppression: Stereotype and counter-stereotype accessibility. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 42, Moskowitz, G.B., & Li, P. (2011). Egalitarian goals trigger stereotype inhibition: A proactive form of stereotype control. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 47(1), Mendoza, S. A., Gollwitzer, P. M., & Amodio, D. A. (2010). Reducing the expression of implicit stereotypes: Reflexive control through implementation intentions. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 36, Mann, T. C., & Ferguson, M. J. (2017). Reversing implicit first impressions through reinterpretation after a two-day delay. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 68, Lai, C. K., Marini, M., Lehr, S. A., Cerruti, C., Shin, J. E. L., Joy-Gaba, J. A.,... & Frazier, R. S. (2014). Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 143(4), Week 8: Bias Awareness Prejudice-Regulation 1. Perry, S. P., Murphy, M. C., & Dovidio, J. F. (2015). Modern prejudice: Subtle, but unconscious? The role of Bias Awareness in Whites' perceptions of personal and others' biases. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, Monteith, M. J., Ashburn-Nardo, L., Voils, C. I., & Czopp, A. M. (2002). Putting the brakes on prejudice: On the development and operation of cues for control. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 83, Amodio, D. M., & Swencionis, J. K. (2018). Proactive control of implicit bias: A theoretical model and implications for behavior change. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 115(2), Legault, L., Green-Demers, I., Grant, P., & Chung, J. (2007). On the self-regulation of implicit and explicit prejudice: A self-determination theory perspective. Personality & Social Psychology Bulletin, 33,

6 Week 9: Obstacles to Bias Awareness 1. Hahn, A., & Gawronski, B. (in press). Facing one's implicit biases: From awareness to acknowledgement. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. 2. Vitriol, J.A., Moskowitz, G., & Sackett, A (under review). The (In)Egalitarian Self: On the motivated rejection of implicit racial bias feedback. Manuscript submitted for publication at Journal of Personality and Social Psychology. *Note: To ensure that you have enough time to begin working on your final projects, we will split up the below readings. For your assigned reading, you will be asked to spend 5-10 minutes summarizing the paper (e.g. What did they test (and how)? What did they expect to happen and why? What did they find? What are the implications of this finding?). Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M. (2011). Ironic effects of antiprejudice messages: How motivational interventions can reduce (but also increase) prejudice. Psychological Science, 22, Frantz, C. M., Cuddy, A. J., Burnett, M., Ray, H., & Hart, A. (2004). A threat in the computer: The race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 30(12), Week 10: Defensive Reactions to IAT Education and Feedback 1. Howell, J.L., Collisson, B.D., Crysel, L., Garrido, C.O., Newell, S.M. Cottrell, C.A., Smith, C.T. & Shepperd, J.A. (2013). Managing the threat of impending implicit attitude feedback. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, Howell, J.L., Gaither, S.E., & Ratliff, K.A. (2015). Caught in the middle: Defensive responses to IAT feedback among Whites, Blacks, and Biracial Black/Whites. Social Psychological and Personality Science, 4, Howell, J.L., Redford, L., Pogge, G., & Ratliff, K.A. (2017). Responding defensively to IAT feedback. Social Cognition. 4. Howell, J.L., Ratliff, K.A. (2017). Not your average bigot: The better-than-average effect and defensive responding to implicit bias feedback. British Journal of Social Psychology. 56, Week 11: Anti-Bias Interventions Bantam, p Paluck, E.L. (2016). How to overcome prejudice. Science. 352(6282), 147.

7 3. Paluck, E.L., & Green, D.P. (2009). Prejudice reduction: What works? A critical look at evidence from the field and the laboratory. Annual Review of Psychology, 60, Forscher, P. S., Mitamura, C., Dix, E. L., Cox, W. T. L., & Devine, P. G. (2017). Breaking the prejudice habit: Mechanisms, timecourse, and longevity. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 72, Parker, L.R., Monteith, M.J., Moss-Racusin, C.A., & Van Camp, A.R. (in press). Promoting concern about gender bias with evidence-based confrontation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology. Week 12: Ironic and Backfire Effects of Anti-Bias Interventions 1. Dobbin, F. & Kalev, A. (2016). Why Diversity Programs Fail. Harvard Business Review, July-August. 2. Kaiser, C. R., Major, B., Jurcevic, I., Dover, T. L., Brady, L. M., & Shapiro, J. R. (2013). Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. Journal Of Personality And Social Psychology, 104(3), Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R. (2016). Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 62, Dover, T. L., Major, B., & Kaiser, C. R (2014). Diversity initiatives, status, and system justifying beliefs: When and how diversity efforts de-legitimize discrimination claims. Group Processes and Intergroup Relations. 17 (4),