Applied Racial/Ethnic Healthcare Disparities Research Using Implicit Measures.

Many healthcare disparities studies use the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to assess bias. Despite ongoing controversy around the IAT, its use has enabled researchers to reliably document an association between provider implicit prejudice and provider-to-patient communication (provider communication behaviors and patient reactions to them). Success in documenting such associations is likely due to the outcomes studied, study settings, and data structure unique to racial/ethnic healthcare disparities research. In contrast, there has been little evidence supporting the role of providers' implicit bias in treatment recommendations. Researchers are encouraged to use multiple implicit measures to further investigate how, why, and under what circumstances providers' implicit bias predicts provider-to-patient communication and treatment recommendations. Such efforts will contribute to the advancement of both basic social psychology/social cognition research and applied health disparities research: a better understanding of implicit social cognition and a more comprehensive identification of the sources of widespread racial/ethnic healthcare disparities, respectively.

Implementation Intentions Reduce Implicit Stereotype Activation and Application.

Research has found that implementation intentions, if-then action plans (e.g., "if I see a Black face, I will think safe"), reduce stereotyping on implicit measures. However, it is unknown by what process(es) implementation intentions reduce implicit stereotyping. The present research examines the effects of implementation intentions on stereotype activation (e.g., extent to which stereotypic information is accessible) and stereotype application (e.g., extent to which accessible stereotypes are applied in judgment). In addition, we assessed the efficiency of implementation intentions by manipulating cognitive resources (e.g., digit-span, restricted response window) while participants made judgments on an implicit stereotyping measure. Across four studies, implementation intentions reduced implicit stereotyping. This decrease in stereotyping was associated with reductions in both stereotype activation and application. In addition, these effects of implementation intentions were highly efficient and associated with reduced stereotyping even for groups for which people may have little practice inhibiting stereotypes (e.g., gender).

Seeing is not stereotyping: the functional independence of categorization and stereotype activation.

Social categorization has been viewed as necessarily resulting in stereotyping, yet extant research suggests the two processes are differentially sensitive to task manipulations. Here, we simultaneously test the degree to which race perception and stereotyping are conditionally automatic. Participants performed a sequential priming task while either explicitly attending to the race of face primes or directing attention away from their semantic nature. We find a dissociation between the perceptual encoding of race and subsequent activation of associated stereotypes, with race perception occurring in both task conditions, but implicit stereotyping occurring only when attention is directed to the race of the face primes. These results support a clear conceptual distinction between categorization and stereotyping and show that the encoding of racial category need not result in stereotype activation.

Power effects on implicit prejudice and stereotyping: The role of intergroup face processing.

Power is thought to increase discrimination toward subordinate groups, yet its effect on different forms of implicit bias remains unclear. We tested whether power enhances implicit racial stereotyping, in addition to implicit prejudice (i.e., evaluative associations), and examined the effect of power on the automatic processing of faces during implicit tasks. Study 1 showed that manipulated high power increased both forms of implicit bias, relative to low power. Using a neural index of visual face processing (the N170 component of the ERP), Study 2 revealed that power affected the encoding of White ingroup vs. Black outgroup faces. Whereas high power increased the relative processing of outgroup faces during evaluative judgments in the prejudice task, it decreased the relative processing of outgroup faces during stereotype trait judgments. An indirect effect of power on implicit prejudice through enhanced processing of outgroup versus ingroup faces suggested a potential link between face processing and implicit bias. Together, these findings demonstrate that power can affect implicit prejudice and stereotyping as well as early processing of racial ingroup and outgroup faces.