Racial bias sways economic decisions

NYU (US) — Unconscious or unintentional racial bias is pervasive; steering economic and trust decisions, even with highly trained professionals like doctors.

A distinction exists between explicit and implicit mental processes, including attitudes, beliefs, and self-perceptions, where explicit mental processes involve intentional decisions or judgments while implicit mental processes occur automatically and without awareness, says Elizabeth Phelps, professor of psychology at New York University.

The study, published in the journal Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, focuses on implicit social bias—how strongly one associates a concept like “pleasant” or “unpleasant” with different social groups.

“Decisions in the worlds of business, law, education, medicine, and even more ordinary daily interactions between individuals, all rely on trust,” the study says. “In an increasingly globalized economy, that trust must be forged between individuals who differ in background, shared experiences, and aspirations.”

“These results provide evidence that decisions we may believe to be consciously determined are, in fact, not entirely so, and suggest that this may have a very real cost for individuals and society. Whom we trust is not only a reflection of who is trustworthy, but also a reflection of who we are.”

Employing a commonly used Implicit Association Test (IAT), researchers asked 50 racially diverse participants to use their gut impressions to rate the trustworthiness of individuals depicted in just under 300 photographs of black, white, Asian, Hispanic, and mixed race men on a scale from one (“not-at-all trustworthy”) to nine (“extremely trustworthy”).

The researchers found that the participants’ implicit race attitudes, measured in a subsequent test, predicted disparities in the perceived trustworthiness of black and white faces. Individuals whose tests demonstrated a stronger pro-white implicit bias were more likely to judge white faces as more trustworthy than black faces, and vice versa, regardless of that individual’s own race or explicit beliefs.

In a similar experiment using another group of participants, the researchers assessed how implicit racial biases may affect economic or business decisions. Participants were shown the images of the same individuals used in the first experiment and told these individuals were the subjects’ partners and had been previously interviewed by the experimenter. Participants then had to make decisions about how much money they would risk with these partners.

Participants’ implicit racial biases predicted racial disparities in the amounts of money participants were willing to risk in this trust-based interpersonal economic interaction. Specifically, individuals whose IAT scores reflected a stronger pro-White implicit bias were likely to offer more money to White than Black partners and vice versa.

The results suggest that implicit biases toward social groups may drive rapid evaluations of unfamiliar individuals in the absence of additional information, despite conscious desires and intentions.

While the study’s subjects in both experiments included multiple racial groups, the race of the participants did not account for the findings.

“There is not a simple correspondence between individuals’ implicit racial attitudes and their own race,” the study says.  “Implicit attitudes are thought to result from many sources beyond one’s own race, including environmental exposure and personal interactions.”

Researchers from California Institute of Technology (Caltech) and Harvard University contributed to the study, that was supported by grants from the MacArthur and Third Millennium foundations.

More news from NYU: www.nyu.edu/public.affairs/