Cambridge Handbook of Implicit Bias and Racism

Jon A. Krosnick is the Frederic O. Glover Professor in Humanities and Social Sciences and Professor of Communication, Political Science, and Psychology at Stanford University, USA. He has won the lifetime achievement award from the American Association for Public Opinion Research and the Nevitt Sanford Award from the International Society of Political Psychology. Tobias H. Stark is Associate Professor at Utrecht University, the Netherlands. He studies prejudice in social networks and has won the prize for best dissertation from the Dutch Sociological Association and from the Erasmus Prize Foundation, and the Lorenz-von-Stein prize for best master's thesis. He has received more than 10 research fellowships and grants, including an ERC consolidator grant, to support his work. Amanda L. Scott is co-owner of The Strategy Team, an applied research firm, and a social psychologist trained in stereotyping, legal decision-making, research design, and survey methodology. She won a fellowship from the National Science Foundation and was appointed as Social Science Research Advisor to the Ohio Department of Job and Family Services.

• Foreword; Introduction: taking stock of explicit and implicit prejudice; 1. Report on the NSF conference on implicit bias; Section 1. What is implicit bias and (how) can we measure it?: 2. Implicit bias: what is it?; 3. Lessons from two decades of project implicit; 4. Aversive racism and implicit bias; 5. Stretching the limits of science: was the implicit-racism debate a 'bridge too far' for social psychology?; Section 2. Predicting behavior and attitudes with measures of implicit bias: 6. The impact of implicit racial bias in racial health disparities: a practical problem with theoretical implications; 7. Revisiting the measurement of group schemas in political science; 8. Implicit bias and discrimination: evidence on causality; 9. What is the unique contribution of implicit measures in predicting political choices?; 10. Predicting biased behavior with implicit attitudes: results from a voting experiment and the 2008 Presidential election; Section 3. Challenges of research on implicit Bias: 11. The rationality, interpretation and overselling of tests of implicit cognition; 12. Listening to measurement error: lessons from the IAT; 13. IAT Scores, racial gaps, and scientific gaps; 14. Commentary; Section 4. Improving measurement and theorizing about implicit bias: 15. Methodological issues in the study of implicit attitudes; 16: The bias of crowds: rethinking implicit bias in social context; 17. Latent state-trait analyses for process models of implicit measures; 18. Increasing the validity of implicit measures: new solutions for assessment, conceptualization, and action explanation; 19. A model of moderated convergence between explicit dispositions, implicit dispositions, and behavior; 20: Complications in predicting intergroup behavior from implicit biases: one size does not fit all; Section 5. How to change implicit bias?: 21. Changing implicit bias vs empowering people to address the personal dilemma of unintentional bias; 22. How can we change implicit bias toward outgroups?; Section 6. Explicit prejudice, alive and well?: 23. A survey researcher's response to the implicit revolution: listen to what people say; 24. A history of the new racisms: symbolic racism, modern racism, and racial resentment; 25. The relations among explicit prejudice measures: anti-black affect and perceptions of value violation as predictors of symbolic racism and attitudes toward racial policies; 26. Complexities in the measurement of explicit racial attitudes; 27. The continuing relevance of Whites' explicit bias—and reflections on the tools to measure it; Section 7. The public's (mis)perception of implicit bias: 28. Public attitudes on implicit bias; 29. The mass public's view of implicit bias, with implications for scientific communication in a politically polarized age.

'Science aims to be self-critical. This Handbook presents an unprecedented number of alternative theories and analyses of implicit bias and racism. Proponents have a free hand to speak to the strengths of their approach; critics to call out weaknesses; putting readers in a unique position to form independent judgements of both the research and public presentations of the research.' Paul Sniderman, Fairleigh S. Dickinson Jr. Professor, Stanford University