Editor’s Note: This article is part of an ongoing symposium on white fragility and its related concepts. To view all of the essays in this series, click here.
A collective groan could be heard around the world as Stars Wars fans finished viewing the eagerly anticipated Episode I: The Phantom Menace (TPM) — released approximately 15 years after the much beloved original Star Wars trilogy changed movie making forever. Die-hard fans objected to numerous aspects of the franchise reboot — not the least of which was the manner in which ‘The Force’ was de-mystified for audiences.
In the first movie (Episode IV: A New Hope), the Force was depicted as a mysterious entity that is the source of a Jedi Knight’s power. It was simply described in the movie as an energy field created by all living things, which surrounds and penetrates beings and binds the galaxy together. Makes sense? Not really. But it was sufficient for fueling the affection and creative imagination of millions worldwide.
In TPM, however, the living cells of certain special individuals were blessed with huge amounts of microscopic life forms called ‘midichlorians’ that enabled them to be ‘strong in the force’ (whatever that means). Disappointed fans felt that this ‘technobabble’ (as one critic characterized it) was one among many problems with the film that robbed the original trilogy of its sense of fun, mystery, and magic.
Obviously, the Stars Wars movies — despite the obscene amounts of money and popularity they have generated over the decades — are a work of pure fiction. There are no such entities as Jedi Knights, light sabers, habitable ice planets, Wookies, or Sith Lords. However, there is one aspect of the storytelling that has relevance for today — the strong desire of psychologists to reduce relatively complex, mysterious, and enduring human psychological concepts down to something that can be oversimplified, put into a test tube, and studied. The technical term for this tendency of psychological science is ‘reductionism,’ which has been roundly criticized.
To illustrate, psychologists and mental health counselors who believe in microaggressions theory assure receptive audiences that brief verbalizations such as ‘all lives matter,’ ‘you sound so articulate,’ or ‘where are you from?’ reflect a form of racialized aggression (regardless of intent) against others, which inflicts ‘small trauma’ as well as ‘assaults on the mental and physical health of persons of color.’
Neuropsychologists affirm that passionate love can be understood, in part, as reflecting activation of the middle insula, anterior cingulate cortex, putamen, retrosplenial cortex, the ventral tegmental area, and right caudate of the human brain — along with deactivation of the amygdala. In addition, who knew that being perceived as attractive boils down to having a face that is 1.5 times longer than it is wide; equal distances between the forehead hairline to the spot between the eyes, the spot between the eyes to the bottom of the nose, and the bottom of the nose to the bottom of the chin; and an ear length that matches the length of the nose?
All human societies, to varying degrees, must grapple with issues related to racial discrimination and racial prejudice — whether such problems are indeed real or are merely perceived to be real. Within America, racial tensions between subpopulations lie at the root of vexing problems across a wide variety of areas as diverse as housing, employment, education, human health, state/national elections, and crime.
The public’s reaction to popular books such as Robin D’Angelo’s White Fragility: Why It’s So Hard for White People to Talk About Racism has uncovered a sharp divide between those who insist that whites are irredeemably racist, are woefully unaware of their white privilege, and are ultimately at fault for most of the problems persons of color face and those who fundamentally reject such ideas. The central thesis of D’Angelo’s book is that whites’ conscious denial of their racism and white privilege are symptomatic of their white fragility — which in and of itself is symptomatic of their unconscious racism.
Wouldn’t it indeed be groundbreaking if a method were discovered whereby the deep-seated evil of racism (however defined) could be objectively identified and accurately measured within persons — much like a midichlorian count in the Star Wars movies could measure how strong a person is with the Force? What if this method were able to bypass an individual’s attempts to consciously manipulate or misrepresent their responses — but instead could mine attitudes deeply lodged in the unconscious? More importantly, what if poor scores from this method could allow important stakeholders to predict future prejudicial and discriminatory actions of persons toward others on the basis of race? Some believe that they have found this in the research surrounding the Implicit Association Test (hereafter abbreviated as the IAT).
Professors Anthony G. Greenwald, Debbie E. McGhee, and Jordan L.K. Schwartz of the University of Washington introduced the IAT to the world in a 1998 article published in the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology (JPSP), “Measuring Individual Differences in Implicit Cognition: The Implicit Association Test.” To date, the article has achieved the status of being among the top five most cited articles from the JPSP, and since its publication has generated hundreds of peer-reviewed journal articles.
In the underlying science supporting the IAT, psychologists theorize that the brain contains a vast interconnected web of knowledge called a ‘semantic network.’ Each concept in this network is represented as a ‘node,’ which is a collection of brain cells that code and store a particular concept. According to the theory, each concept shares connections with other concepts in the network that are related or similar in some way. Any perceived stimuli automatically and involuntarily trigger within the brain associated biases, preferences, and emotions.
The measurement tools used in IAT research fit conceptually within the broader discipline of mental chronometry — which is manifested today in the use of computer technology to measure an individual’s responses, or reaction times (abbreviated RT) to a visual or auditory stimulus that calls for a particular response, choice, or decision. The use of computers allows reaction/response times to be measured in precise milliseconds (thousandths of a second). Hence, although a particular subject involved in an RT experiment may consciously feel that his reaction/response time was the same in one computerized simulation compared to another, more precise chronometric measurement may actually reveal significant differences in average reaction/response times that lie beyond the subject’s conscious awareness across the two simulations.
RT methodology seeks to identify which perceived concepts are either strongly or weakly related to other perceived concepts. RT methodology is used in market research, for example, to discover what consumers automatically and subconsciously associate with brand names. To illustrate, when a consumer is shown a picture of the Apple computer brand logo, it is theorized to trigger what is known as ‘spreading activation,’ or the automatic and involuntary activation of other concepts in the brain’s semantic network. If the Apple logo is strongly associated with the words/phrases ‘Steve Jobs,’ ‘computer,’ ‘fruit,’ or ‘cool,’ then persons will react faster to concepts perceived to be closely related to the Apple logo than concepts perceived to be unrelated.
The main attraction of computerized RT methodology is that it frees the researcher from relying on paper-and-pencil self-report measures, as subjects may be unwilling to report their true personal thoughts or feelings toward a particular subject matter, or may consciously distort/misrepresent their true responses. The low correlations that research studies have found between ‘implicit’ versus ‘explicit’ measures of the same subject matter appear to reinforce the idea that certain biases lie beyond a person’s conscious awareness.
How the Race IAT Works
In Greenwald et al.’s original 1998 experiment, subjects are instructed to sort word stimuli presented on the computer screen into two categories (i.e., pleasant vs. unpleasant), then indicate their responses by pressing a key with their left hand on the left side of the keyboard (to signal one category), or their right hand on the right side of the keyboard (to signal the other category). In early studies, using the IAT to explore racial issues involved the use of black- versus white-sounding names as computer stimuli. Here, the subject participates in the same exercise using the same computer keys, but must sort pleasant versus unpleasant words that are neutral and not associated with race (e.g., ‘gift’, ‘grief’, ‘poison’, ‘lucky’). The same key must be pressed for a black-sounding name and an unpleasant word, and the other key must be pressed for a white-sounding name and a pleasant word. For subsequent trials, the racial and nonracial word stimuli are then presented in an intermingled fashion, and the subject presses either the left or right keyboard key as quickly as possible after each stimulus appears on the computer screen.
Next, the instructions to the subject are reversed for the random stimuli presentation, in that one key must be pressed to indicate a black-sounding name and a pleasant word, and the other key must be pressed to indicate a white-sounding name and an unpleasant word. If a subject takes longer sorting black-sounding names using the computer key associated with a “pleasant” word than he does sorting white-sounding names using the computer key associated with a “pleasant” word, the IAT deems the subject as a bearer of “implicit bias.” The IAT ranks the subject’s degree of implicit bias based on the differences in milliseconds with which he accomplishes the different sorting tasks. At the conclusion of the test, each subject finds out whether he has a strong, moderate, or weak preference for blacks or for whites. More recent applications of the race IAT use as stimuli actual pictures of faces representing ‘European’ vs. ‘African’ ancestry.
The Race IAT Catches Fire
This initial research resulted in the founding in 1998 of Project Implicit, which is described by the Atlas of Public Management as a non-profit organization of implicit social cognition researchers whose goal is to ‘educate the public about hidden biases and to provide a virtual laboratory for collecting data on the internet.’ In addition, Project Implicit provides ‘consulting, education, and training services on implicit bias, diversity and inclusion, leadership, the application of science to practice, and innovation.’ To date, as many as 17 million persons have taken the race IAT (along with additional IAT protocols that focus on other social groups) on Harvard University’s Project Implicit website.
The IAT is a veritable godsend for the racism industry in America and abroad, as it appears to affirm the useful narrative that explicit racism — rather than being rendered ineffective by antidiscrimination laws and modern social pressures — is nevertheless alive and well as manifested in ‘hidden racism,’ ‘aversive racism,’ ‘reasonable racism,’ ‘unconscious bias,’ ‘benevolent discrimination,’ ‘color-blind racism,’ ‘benign bigotry,’ ‘symbolic racism,’ ‘silent racism,’ and the like. According to one writer, getting to know one’s implicit biases (via taking the race IAT) is ‘step one’ of becoming an ‘anti-racist ally’ to the Black community — as it ‘unravels the workings of racist thinking’ and allows race IAT users to ‘confront their own racist thoughts and beliefs’.
As seeming validation for the social importance of the race IAT, the Project Implicit website reports that three implicit bias researchers (Mahzarin Banaji, Tony Greenwald, and Brian Nosek) were given the prestigious Golden Goose Award from the American Association for the Advancement of Science during a ceremony at the Library of Congressin recognition of their work “as a major breakthrough with exceptional social impact”.
At this juncture, a distinction needs to be made between the philosophical assumptions of America’s ‘racism industry’ and the long-established principles of patient, careful, and dispassionate science. In this latter world, before any instrument (that purports to be a good measure of a psychological construct) is ready for real-world use, it must first provide solid and consistent empirical evidence that answers questions in four basic categories:
- Does the instrument actually measure what it purports to measure? Or, are there plausible competing explanations as to what is being measured? How much of whatever is being measured is useless ‘noise’?
- Whatever the instrument purports to measure, does it do so reliably? That is, can whatever is measured provide stable scores over time?
- Is whatever is being measured related in meaningful ways to other behaviors measured in laboratory settings?
- Is whatever is being measured related in meaningful ways to other behaviors deemed to be significant and important in real-world contexts?
In Part II of this series, I will examine the evidence for the race IAT under the first three categories of questions. In Part III of this series, I will discuss evidence for the fourth question in considerable detail, concluding with an overall assessment of the utility of the race IAT in light of its numerous claims.