The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without prejudice.

By Patricia G. Devine, E. A. Plant, David M. Amodio, Eddie Harmon-Jones, Stephanie L. Vance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2002

736 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Cognitive Neuroscience, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/7ae1b915e58af9a5755ad2b33d56a2717d2802fc

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Cognitive Neuroscience

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

Religious Appeals and Implicit Attitudes (2011, methodology): “The IAT has been used to study racial and ethnic attitudes (Dasgupta, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2003; Devine et al., 2002; Greenwald et al., 1998), gender stereotypes (Blair et al.”
Reintegrating the Study of Accuracy Into Social Cognition Research (2011, background): “They can correct these mistakes, but only through slow, labor-intensive application of rules, and in the absence of such efforts, they “default” to error and bias (Devine, 1989; Devine et al., 2002; Gilbert, Pinel, Wilson, Blumberg, & Wheatley, 1989).”
The social neuroscience of intergroup relations (2008, methodology): “The startleeyeblink method permitted us to test whether the same individual differences observed by Devine et al. (2002) would be found on a measure assessing (a) emotional reactions that (b) occurred within a few hundred milliseconds following the presentation of a Black vs White (or Asian) face.”
The existence of implicit bias is beyond reasonable doubt: A refutation of ideological and methodological objections and executive summary of ten studies that no manager should ignore (2009, neutral): “…more likely and its opposite, intergroup bias, less likely (e.g., Amodio et al., 2003, 2004, 2006, 2008; Blair, 2002; Dasgupta & Rivera, 2006; Devine et al., 2002; Dunton & Fazio, 1997; Fazio et al., 1995; Glaser & Knowles, 2008; Hofmann, Gschwendner, Castelli, & Schmitt, 2008; Lowery et…”
RESEARCH: Christian Orthodoxy, Religious Fundamentalism, and Right-Wing Authoritarianism as Predictors of Implicit Racial Prejudice (2004, background): “Another integral step will likely involve allowing people to develop their own autonomous reasons for being less biased (Devine et al., 2002).”
AN EXAMINATION OF WHETHER AND HOW RACIAL AND GENDER BIASES INFLUENCE CUSTOMER SATISFACTION (2010, background): “Consequently, if Devine et al.’s (2002) arguments are correct then the most effective mechanisms for de-biasing customer judgments are internal.”
Unresolved problems with the “I”, the “A”, and the “T”: A logical and psychometric critique of the Implicit Association Test (IAT) (2006, neutral): “The most chosen research focus is on the IAT as a diagnostic end in itself and only rarely on tests of IAT-independent cognitive or affective hypotheses (for notable exceptions see Devine, Plant, Amodio, Harmon-Jones, & Vance, 2002 ; Wittenbrink, Judd, & Park, 2001 ), rendering it quite different ”
Can Evidence Impact Attitudes? Public Reactions to Evidence of Gender Bias in STEM Fields (2015, result): “…ecologically valid results to previous experimental laboratory work, suggesting that clear evidence can be associated with observers’ awareness of bias (Devine, 1989; Devine et al., 2002; but see the limitations section below for a discussion of the correlational nature of the current findings).”