Cited by 272Social and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchPsychometric Methodologies and Testing

Six Lessons for a Cogent Science of Implicit Bias and Its Criticism

Open access
Gawronski, Bertram·2019·Perspectives on Psychological Science

Abstract

Skepticism about the explanatory value of implicit bias in understanding social discrimination has grown considerably. The current article argues that both the dominant narrative about implicit bias as well as extant criticism are based on a selective focus on particular findings that fails to consider the broader literature on attitudes and implicit measures. To provide a basis to move forward, the current article discusses six lessons for a cogent science of implicit bias: (a) There is no evidence that people are unaware of the mental contents underlying their implicit biases; (b) conceptual correspondence is essential for interpretations of dissociations between implicit and explicit bias; (c) there is no basis to expect strong unconditional relations between implicit bias and behavior; (d) implicit bias is less (not more) stable over time than explicit bias; (e) context matters fundamentally for the outcomes obtained with implicit-bias measures; and (f) implicit measurement scores do not provide process-pure reflections of bias. The six lessons provide guidance for research that aims to provide more compelling evidence for the properties of implicit bias. At the same time, they suggest that extant criticism does not justify the conclusion that implicit bias is irrelevant for the understanding of social discrimination.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/1745691619826015

Cites

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • Participants may be surprised about their IAT feedback not because they are unaware of their attitudes, but because the metric underlying their verbal quantification does not match the metric underlying the verbal quantification in the feedback they receive.

    “participants may be surprised about their IAT feedback not because they are unaware of their attitudes, but because the metric under- lying their verbal quantification does not match the metric underlying the verbal quantification in the feedback they receive (Gawronski 2019).”

The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet

References 144 · Cited by 272

Authors
Gawronski, B.
Affiliations
The University of Texas at Austin (US)
Corresponding author
Gawronski, Bertram
Venue
Perspectives on Psychological Science
Published
2019-06-10
Volume
14
Issue
4
Pages
574-595
ISSN
  • 1745-6916 (ISSN-L)
  • 1745-6924
OpenAlex
W2949787213
Cited by
272
References
144
Citations by year
2026: 8 · 2025: 40 · 2024: 33 · 2023: 24 · 2022: 52 · 2021: 29 · 2020: 77 · 2019: 8
FWCI
83.58
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Perspectives on Psychological Science (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
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
implicit bias, social discrimination, implicit bias measurement, context effects, attitudes
MeSH terms
Humans, Prejudice, Research Design, Social Discrimination

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