Cited by 15Social and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Biases left unattended: People are surprised at racial bias feedback until they pay attention to their biased reactions

Open access
Goedderz, Alexandra, Hahn, Adam·2022·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology

Published version of a preprint

Abstract

Why are people surprised at racial bias feedback, such as test results from Implicit Association Tests (IATs), even though they can predict their IAT racial bias scores prospectively? The present research tested three hypotheses: People are surprised at racial bias feedback due to (1) the feedback wording, (2) implicit evaluations often being preconscious and unattended, or because (3) pretending to be surprised at racial bias feedback is socially desirable. One pilot, four preregistered studies, and a mini-meta-analysis supported hypothesis (2): Although racial biases such as those reflected on IAT scores are observable, people rarely pay attention to them. Specifically, predicting IAT results (Studies 2-4b) and encouragement to pay attention to one's biased reactions before IAT completion (Study 3) reduced surprise, independent of explanation of “implicit bias” (Study 4b). Contradicting the social-desirability hypothesis (3), neither encouragement to admit to bias in the form of abstract predictions (Study 3), nor non-threatening explanations of implicit bias (Study 4b), reduced surprise in the absence of encouragement to pay attention to one's own biases. Speaking against hypothesis (1), surprise was independent of feedback severity (Studies 1–3); and the prediction effect was mediated by recognition of bias, but not correspondence of predictions and feedback (Study 3). These studies suggest that surprise is a consequence of the preconscious nature of automatic social cognitions: People may be motivated to keep consciously accessible racial biases out of awareness. Implications for theories of implicit social cognition and the generality of these effects beyond research on implicit bias are discussed.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jesp.2022.104374

Cites

63 of 63 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

  • The high level of accuracy in the prediction of IAT scores appears to conflict with evidence that participants tend to be rather surprised when they receive feedback about their performance.

    “The high level of accuracy in the prediction of IAT scores appears to conflict with evidence that participants tend to be rather surprised when they receive feedback about their perfor- mance (e.g., when they learn that they have a strong preference for White over Black people; see Goedderz & Hahn 2022).”

    From Unawareness of Attitudes, Their Environmental Causes, and Their Behavioral Effects (2025) · cites this paper as Goedderz & Hahn 2022

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

4 of the 67 references couldn’t be matched to a known paper.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Goedderz, A., & Hahn, A.
Affiliations
University of Cologne (DE)
Corresponding author
Goedderz, Alexandra
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2022-09
Volume
102
Pages
104374
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
OpenAlex
W4283218604
Cited by
15
References
67
Citations by year
2026: 2 · 2025: 1 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 2 · 2022: 4
FWCI
4.68
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • Kölner Universitäts PublikationsServer (Universität zu Köln) (publishedVersion)
  • Pure (University of Bath) (submittedVersion, cc-by-nc-nd)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion, cc-by)
  • PsyArXiv (OSF Preprints) (submittedVersion)
Funders
Deutsche Forschungsgemeinschaft (HA 8167/2-1)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Decision Sciences › Management Science and Operations Research › Psychometric Methodologies and Testing
Keywords
racial bias, implicit bias, Implicit Association Test, surprise, feedback, bias awareness, social desirability, implicit social cognition

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review