by Anna Hickner

  As time progresses and the cultural climate of our country takes a new turn, interracial interactions are more and more common. Now more than ever, we encounter people of different backgrounds on a daily basis. Among the most strained, yet common, are interactions between Caucasians and African Americans. The United States of America has a long and toiled history of White and Black relations. Since the birth of our country there has been racial tension. Although explicit forms of racism are generally considered taboo today, many other types of subliminal and aversive racism still exist. This paper explores the prevalence of implicit racism in our society through use of brain imaging, implicit association testing, and models of social thought construction, and the implications of these findings for our society today and in the future.

With the evolution of sophisticated measurement techniques in neuroscience, new and interesting data reveals biological reactions to everyday life. Because of the push for “politically correct” social conduct, the way one behaves is not necessarily congruent with what one’s thoughts, attitudes and beliefs. In a number of studies, researchers explored this discrepancy by using fMRI techniques to scan brain activity of White participants when encountering Black faces. As an umbrella statement, usually only white participants are used because the bias in any majority/minority dyad seems to play in the majority’s favor. In some studies in this paper, however, Black participants were also used. The amygdala, part of the brain often associated with emotional reaction and fear, is considered part of the limbic system. Located deep in the temporal lobes, it is connected to various parts of the brain that regulate behavior, control and thought. Previous studies cite that there is strong activation of the left superior amygdala when Whites view pictures of Black faces (Phelps et al., 2000).

A study by Hart et al. (2000) explored this concept further. Using an fMRI, the researchers explored amygdala activation of White participants viewing ingroup and outgroup categories with neutral facial expressions. They found that there was more activity when viewing faces of outgroup members (White participants looking at Black faces) than faces of ingroup members (White participants looking at White faces). Still, none of the subjects, although indicating that they noticed the pictures were differentiated by race, self-reported emotional reactions to the pictures. Therefore, although no explicit personal biases were reported, neural imaging demonstrated a prolonged activation response to faces of a different race as opposed to faces of same race (Hart et al., 2000). Since this brain region is associated with facial recognition as well as threatening situations, researchers concluded that amygdala activation indicates a fear reaction in White participants, even if outward behavior and self-report does not support this assertion.

Although for many years the amygdala was considered the target region activated in viewing faces of outgroups, current research indicates that not only the amygdala, but also that other parts of the brain are also utilized. Harris and Fiske (2006) used neuroimaging of participants who looked at slides of depictions of extreme outgroups and noticed that the emotional response is not confined solely to one region of the brain:

 “members of some social groups seem to be dehumanized, at least as indicated by the absence of the typical neural signature for social cognition, as well as the exaggerated amygdala and insula reactions (consistent with disgust) and the disgust ratings they elicit.” (p. 852)

Other studies also support the hypothesis that areas the prefrontal cortex are activated in interracial interactions, specifically the regions associated with social cognition, such as the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). This finding corroborates other research that argues that although brain imaging highlights certain emotionally reactive situations (that of seeing a picture of a Black face), there is also evidence that subsequent brain processes act to overcompensate in order to cover up the automatic “dislike” reaction. A group of researchers focused on the specific neural components that processed Black and White faces. By using the fMRI scans and the Implicit Associations Test (IAT), researchers found that amygdala activity was consistent with implicit racist attitudes. However, all White participants also displayed efforts to hide their bias (Cunningham et al., 2004). This is consistent with prior research that indicates Whites have a tendency to mask racist attitudes that are now regarded as socially unacceptable. In addition to amygdala activation, their data showed activity difference in the PFC and anterior cingulated when viewing slides of Black and White faces. Thus areas of the brain that are responsible for inhibition, conflict and control were also utilized.

Inhibition and control are paramount in social correctness. To challenge these compensatory behaviors, Bartholow, Dickter and Sestir (2006) used alcohol, known for its diminishing effect with inhibition control, as an agent to challenge the masking of racial bias. They used behavioral event-related brain potential (ERP) data to monitor the effect of alcohol on racial bias. By administering various levels of alcohol to of-age participants, they hypothesized that automatic associations regarding race would not change, but the controlled reactions to race would decrease as alcohol suppressed inhibitions. They found on both behavioral and ERP measures, controlled reactions were noticeably impaired. As automatic reactions remained unaffected, the ability to “cover up” certain attitudes was reduced, thus pointing to the idea that certain mechanisms are implemented for socially acceptable conduct. This not only supports the notion that areas in the brain associated with higher-order functioning are recruited for control in interracial interactions, but also that when alcohol is introduced, it has the potential to shed light on surreptitious attitudes that can and will affect future race relations.

 Interestingly, such studies that find people use control is used to mask a prejudiced reaction, also find that overall executive function is compromised. A study that looked at the impact of interracial contact on executive function concluded that individuals who reportedly have a higher bias towards Blacks have lower task completion outcomes (Richeson et al., 2003). By using fMRI imaging and the Stroop Test, a test that consists of color naming unrelated to racial cues, results indicated that prior interaction with an unfamiliar Black face affected performance on a racially neutral task. In fact, the dorsolateral prefrontal cortex (DLPFC), responsible for exacting control, was the primary activated area of the brain. Underperformance on the Stroop Tests suggests that significant amount energy is expended on exacting control in these instances, to the extent that neural faculties are compromised. However, it is suggested that this effect may be dissipate with increased interaction with stigmatized persons (Richeson & Shelton, 2003).

After conducting the above referenced research in 2003, Richeson and Trawalter (2005) explored this relationship to impaired cognitive function using the idea of a resource depletion account. They note, “This implication is particularly troubling because it suggest that being motivated to control prejudice during interracial interactions may come with negative consequences for individuals,” (Richeson and Trawalter, 2005, p. 944). This points to several important things. First, suggests that masking prejudice may be prevalent in today’s society, even to the extent that performance in other areas is compromised. Second, it suggests that racial interactions may not be as improved as they appear, although overt racism has diminished. Third, if this hypothesis is true, interracial tensions may affect performance and overall efficiency and efficacy in the work place and social environments.

One may be quick to point out that compensatory actions are not conscious and racial bias is unintentional. A study using electroencephalography recorded error-related negativity (ERN) waves. The hypothesis rested on the idea that the longer time lapse in brain wave activity was associated with conflict-detection processes that related to race-bias tendencies (Amodio et al., 2004). The results suggest that although neural mechanisms are activated for a control response in biased attitudes, this operates at an unconscious level. Therefore, personal acknowledgement of racial attitudes is not pertinent to the recruitment of compensatory behaviors. Collectively, whether the individual knowingly or unknowingly works to control prejudiced reactions, this function is utilized regardless, and highlights the seriousness of concern regarding these attitudes.

            Measuring implicit, or unconscious, attitudes is an approach that has received significant attention in social behavioral theories. The Implicit Associations Test (IAT) is a popular tool for measuring in unconscious associations. The test is designed with the assumption that automatic processing works quickly, thus associations that are automatic will have a small latency period. Conversely, associations with a longer lag time are considered to be somewhat biased, in that the participant is striving for what an answer should be, rather than their personal, unbiased reaction, much like the theory behind ERP scanning. The race version of the IAT involves attitudinal measures and target concepts using exemplars (Frantz et al., 2004). Participants are exposed to Black and White faces, in addition to words with pleasant or unpleasant connotations. The test is administered on a computer in four blocks. The blocks consist of pairings of Black or White faces with “good” or “bad” associations. Participants are asked to press a right or left key according to the categorization of the image displayed on the screen. For example, if the left and right keys represent the categories of “pleasant” and “unpleasant”, images on the screen will be placed into each category according to the individual’s automatic associations. While this test includes neutral images for control purposes, results across studies show an overwhelming favoring of the categorization White+pleasant /Black+unpleasant than the reverse Black+pleasant/White+unpleasant. This reveals implicit racial bias of pro-White attitudes.

With all the work done on Civil Rights and Affirmative Action, one might question, “How are these values still so engrained?” Some studies looked at priming techniques and their feedback on implicit racial bias. In one study, participants were divided into two groups and each instructed to smile while looking at either Black or White faces. The group that smiled when seeing Black faces were instructed to relax their facial muscles while viewing White faces and vice versa. After the priming period, each participant was instructed to hold a pencil between their teeth in which their lips could not touch, thus producing a smile. The results indicated that research suggested implicit racial bias is reduced when participants are unconsciously smiling. (Ito et al., 2006). Additionally, Dasgutpa and Greenwald (2004) conducted a series of three experiments to explore the malleability of automatic attitudes. They proposed that, “several new theories of attitude and empirical demonstrations suggest that attitudes are multifaceted evaluations” (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2004). In their study, they measured whether exposure to celebrated African American figures changed implicit racial attitudes on the IAT. They found that, up to 24 hours post testing, there was more positive association with Blacks and less pro-White bias. These findings could have significant implications for the usefulness of the priming effect, which will be touched upon later.

            Of course, the IAT is not a perfect test of implicit bias and there is controversy about the accuracy of the measure. One argument is that the IAT measures familiarity of objects rather than attitudinal responses (Kinoshita & Peek-O’Leary, 2005). Naturally, the idea of same-group preference rests on the assumption that one is more familiar with, and surrounded by, people of their own race. Therefore, some say that it is unclear whether the race IAT actually measures prejudice. Another argument is that racial attitudes change depending on the circumstance. It is suggested that, when comparing the IAT to BFP, or “bona fide pipeline” which is a priming technique, the IAT primarily measures reactions to categories while the BFP measures reactions to exemplars (Olson & Fazio, 2004). In a study that compared these two measures, three-fourths of the participants showed prejudice to Blacks on the IAT while only half did on the BFP. Therefore, a negative connotation may be associated with Blacks as an overall population, but not to specific people. Thus, when certain individuals are relegated to a specific racial group, attitude changes, which may have positive or negative consequences.

Also, as the IAT has gained popularity individuals became more familiar with the purpose of the measure. Consequently, while taking the test, White participants were cognizant of the prejudicial attitudes the results revealed. As already mentioned, there is a certain stigma associated with being labeled racist in this country. In such measures like the IAT, more often than not, those who would like to consider themselves unbiased show biased opinions. Therefore, as this knowledge spread and the social stigma of being racist intensified, participants skewed their answers in order to present an acceptable façade. Thus, the validity of the IAT is questioned. Frantz et al. (2004) propose the idea of stereotype threat on the IAT, “some White people feel this threat when they believe their racial attitudes are being tested, which undermines their performance on the test” (p. 1612). When this occurs, responses are distorted, as their study found. However, they also found that certain techniques of self-affirmation help to attenuate this effect. In essence, Whites are aware that their group is often labeled racist. The higher biased individuals or those more sensitive to the label are more likely to skew their answers, as indicated on the IAT scores. Even when researchers attempt to mask the true item they are measuring, overly sensitive individuals provide socially acceptable answers. Interestingly, this study found that certain pretest reaffirming measures that one does not intent to be outwardly racist helps to alleviate this compensatory behavior (Franz et al., 2004).

It is important to highlight here why Whites try to hard to mask their bias. Indeed, the social and professional ramifications are clear. Having the label of racist is, in most cases, a detriment in many environments. Still, the depth of this issue is deeper than merely a surface conflict of carrying a label. People also believe it to reflect personal character. Guilt is a pervading undercurrent throughout the topic of racism. Since our forefathers stepped foot on this continent, our history is has been ladened with story upon story of acts of injustice, immoral treatment and dehumanization. A constant throughout these accounts is the dominating White man. Therefore, as issues of White privilege and inequality are addressed, there becomes a collective building of rage in the Black community and guilt in the White community. Guilt is a hugely motivating factor that often moves individuals to act with moral intentions. One study found that guilt was a primary emotional response in White participants when viewing Black faces. Participants first completed the Attitudes Towards Blacks (ATB) scale. After, frontal cortical asymmetry measured by electroencephalography (EEG) monitored participant’s brain activity when viewing pictures from the International Affective Picture System. This frontal region of the brain is associated with approach/withdrawal behaviors, which also correspond to punishment-reward behaviors and is highly correlated with the emotion guilt (Amodio, Devine & Harmon-Jones, 2007). The researchers found that those who displayed more prejudice also displayed more brain activity in expressing guilt. The guilt emotion, consequently, was predictive of behaviors associated with prejudice-reduction. Individuals who were prejudiced and felt guilty of the prejudice were more motivated to act to reverse their responses than those who did not carry the guilt. The authors also note that consequent behavior and cognitive processes regarding this integration of information, and subsequent responses, is complex and multifaceted. This speaks to the gravity and difficulty interracial interactions can incite. It affects not only the cognitive domain, but the emotional one as well. The two do not necessarily communicate clearly. Where emotions and cognitions conflict, an individual might feel lost, confused or downtrodden. This duality extends to political, social, psychological and scientific issues. We must look for ways to promote healthy interracial relationships and reduce the negative emotions associated with interracial contact, on both sides.

Our society today maintains a much higher acceptance of interracial friendships, marriages and interactions than years past. Such exposure has effects on the individuals who engage in these relationships. Elaborating on Allport’s Contact Hypothesis, a group of researchers from Humboldt State University studied the effects of interethnic friendships on implicit bias. The Contact Hypothesis supports contact with outgroup populations to promote social awareness, cooperative learning and an overall increased level of comfort with those considered different from oneself. This happens when individuals of different groups are in an environment where all individuals have equal status, common goals, cooperative or interdependent living, and support from authorities (Aberson, Shoemaker & Tomolillo, 2004). They found that interethnic relationships help diminish implicit biases, and suggest that these relationships may contribute to reducing overall prejudice. This evidence is encouraging in the struggle to overcome racial barriers and is especially important for places, like as the state of California that houses many diverse populations. Building positive relationships between races and ethnicities can be difficult, but may have lasting consequences that greatly outweigh the alternative.

Yet, not all research is so encouraging. Another study that examined interracial interactions yielded interesting results regarding racial bias. It elaborated on previous research that indicated that Whites overcompensate when trying to mask racial attitudes. The degree of this masking varies, of course, according to a number of factors. These include true racist attitudes, level of guilt for these attitudes, inhibition control and desire for social correctness. Of interest in this study was the ability of Blacks to detect racial bias in Whites, and how that affected Blacks perception of their White counterparts. Building on the assumptions that there is innate racial prejudice in Whites regarding Blacks, and that this prejudice is often covered up by executive function control, an outward appearance of acting not racist is assumed to manifest more in individuals with high racial bias than individuals of low racial bias. Therefore, regulatory behaviors were assumed to appear to a great extent in more prejudiced individuals. This proved to be true. However, the degree to which Black participants discerned this masking displayed an ironic effect. In fact, Blacks responded more positively and had a better perception of the highly engaged, higher biased White participants than lower biased White participants (Shelton et al., 2005). It can be reasoned that White individuals with low bias did not feel the need to mask or overcompensate for their true feelings. In a word, they did not feel the need to “front”. Some overcompensation behaviors are easy to pick up on. However, this study points to the ironic effect of that, when there is a high degree of masking, interracial interaction does not necessarily promote healthy relations, but may perpetuate the root of the problem.

            The implications of racial discrimination extend far beyond social circles. Workplace dynamics are particularly important in virtually all sectors of society today. Over the last two decades workplace discrimination has been a hotly contested issue, with huge impacts on hiring practices and ethical issues. Researchers at Emory University looked at how prejudiced views mediated opinions of suitability of job qualifications with candidates of different backgrounds. They used facial electromyography (EMG) to monitor facial expressions of participants when viewing pictures of White and Black faces. The facial EMG reading is linked to affective states and indicative of implicit attitudes (Vanman et al., 2004). The researchers highlight that, “An important feature of our study was that it was conducted at a university where the White student population held fairly positive attitudes about African Americans,” (p. 712). Once again, their results revealed that implicit racial attitudes motivated controlled prejudice. This control of prejudice did not predict applicant selection. Therefore, although an individual rated more prejudiced and made efforts to not seem so, it was not related to the race of the applicant selected. In essence, a White participant who did not want to appear racist was still less likely to chose a Black, equally qualified candidate. What did emerge, however, was that the White students who were less biased towards Blacks tended to select the Black applicant. This study highlighted that where the IAT measure highlights motivation for regulatory behavior, neural correlates of implicit attitudes are more revealing and predictive of behavior.

One can almost always find evidence contrary to what research suggests. Several examples involving the IAT have already been mentioned. This is also true on the biological side of the equation. Because brain associations are difficult to interpret, even experts have a difficult time pinpointing specific behaviors or emotions to a distinct location in the brain. It is important to reexamine literature of neural components regarding interracial interactions, but research in this area is tricky due to the fact that one cannot directly manipulate, or impair, actual brain function. Instead, researchers must turn to individuals with a priori brain damage. Two such individuals with amygdala damage were tested on explicit and implicit race bias measures. They highlight that, despite amygdala damage, there remains negative bias towards Black faces as indicated on the IAT. This research suggests that the amygdala activation is not necessarily essential in race bias as once thought (Phelps et al., 2002). It is suggested that the fusiform face area (FFA), another structure located in the temporal region, is responsible for face recognition, while the amygdala is more attuned to environmental cues (and threatening situations). Thus, measures of innate racial bias may come from other parts of the brain, or may have a stronger correlation with unfamiliarity, or when viewing outgroup, i.e. Black, faces.

Scientists and experts in the field continue to ponder the intricate network of neural connections when the brain is activated by specific behaviors and stimuli. Because the PFC, including the DLPFC and the anterior cingulated cortex (ACC) are interconnected and connected with the amygdala, it continues to elude us as to what influences what when studying the neural correlates of automatic beliefs regarding race. Both the amygdala and PFC have been reported to be important components in racial stereotyping (Knutson et al., 2007), but each part is responsible for different responses. In examining this complex interplay, one must differentiate the neural components of the separate entities of automatic beliefs, social cognizance, executive control mechanisms, and compensatory behavior reactions. Each component may recruit a slightly nuanced but connected part of the brain. When studies are conducted regarding race and other implicit attitudes, various parts of the brain are activated simultaneously. No one part is highlighted, making research in this area extremely demanding.

It is evident that there are a number of ways that racial prejudice, and the manner in which it is investigated, is measured. With each attempt, there seem to be findings that contest the evidence. Taken together, it is difficult to parse out “black and white” truths when researching this topic. What emerges is not a simple, linear relationship but a complex web of various factors, interpretations and contingencies. Cunningham and Zelazo (2007) present two models. One that is a dual processing model that differentiates between implicit and explicit evaluations and subsequent responses. The other is an iterative-reprocessing model that includes a feedback loop and reprocessing of new and old information. This reevaluation is essential for personal evolution and social effectiveness. It is the interplay between automatic affective responses and cognitive evaluation that create a constant flux in attitudes and ideas of “correctness”.

From influences of priming and alcohol, to neural and facial measures, to social understandings and moral conduct, there is no simple model for demonstrating a cut and dry explanation of neural processes in interracial interactions. However, the Quadruple Process model approach takes into account deliberate cognitive processes as well as automatic reactions on implicit measures (Beers et al., 2008). This model attempts to integrate the evidence discussed in this paper. The Quadruple Process model includes four primary processes: the automatic activation associated with the stimulus (AC), detection of a socially acceptable (appropriate) response (D), the overcoming of automatically biased associations (OB), and the ability to guess a correct response, which may either be random or systematic (G). The two fold study by Beers et al. (2008) sought to disentangle the confusion over racial prejudice versus in-group preference/familiarity, as well as account for neural activity associated with social awareness, regulating behavior response, and guessing. The research found that when viewing Black faces incites a negative response, compensation behaviors arose when the implicit measure was detected (D). This was accompanied by insula activity. The data reveals that activation of the amygdala and the medial and right lateral orbitofrontal cortex is more positively correlated with in-group favoritism and may indicate reward expectancies. Alternatively, the data evidences that the caudate and left lateral orbiofrontal cortex was associated with negative biases. The caudate, which is responsible for preparing responses to stimuli, was thought to be recruited for these purposes.

Ever-changing and dynamic models are being developed to account for the evolving evidence from research in interracial interactions. Social consciousness is becoming increasingly important and the implication of this literature has potential for long-term effects. Intermixing between races is inevitable in future generations and research shows that prejudice among Whites is apparent starting in children. The study by Baron and Banaji (2006) concludes that while Blacks do not show a bias towards familiar outgroups, Whites show preference for their race as early as 6 years old. They point out, “It is around age 10 that the split between mean levels of conscious and less conscious racial attitudes first emerges, pointing out the differential sensitivity of these two forms of attitude to the societal demand to be unbiased in race-based evaluation.” (Baron & Banaji, 2006, p. 57). While explicit racism seems to taper off around age 10, an implicit form of racism emerges. Unfortunately, the predominant attitude of “covering up” is not necessarily resolving racial tension, but rather hindering our progression of a society as a whole.

As the demographics of our country shift, Whites are decreasing in number and will soon no longer be the majority. Blacks have a long-standing history of sustaining overt prejudice and are shown to better handle outright discrimination than covert practices. However, this is not true with Whites. Oblivious to many subliminal epithets or ambiguous racial bias, Whites are shown to have more difficulty with overt racial discrimination (Salvatore & Shelton, 2007). Whether it is obvious of subverted, prejudiced attitudes affect both Blacks and Whites. While racial stressors compromise executive functions in Whites, Blacks’ experience somatic symptoms of compromised physical health related issues. Racism not only leads to suboptimal hiring practices and work place efficiency, but also acts as an impediment to a better future on all fronts.

One approach that may be helpful to focus on is our conscious effort to make racial acceptance and appreciation a goal. Wheeler and Fiske (2005) found that different social-cognitive goals influence amygdala activity. Instead of a bottom-up model where the neural processes exact behavioral outcomes, they suggest a top-down approach where goals determine the parts of the brain recruited in response to stimuli. The goal in this study was to classify Black and White faces according to social categorization, social individuation and simple visual inspection. Brain activity was monitored while participants reasoned through the differentiation, and the researches found that in order for the amygdala to be activated, a certain depth of processing must occur. Whether a stimulus, or an individual was considered ingroup or outgroup influenced what part of the brain was triggered. Therefore, depending on the perception and the categorization task, social cognitions changed with the intended goal. This extends to the practice of encouraging interracial interaction because, if emphasis is placed on seeing one of a different race as an individual and not a category, individuals may be more open to learning and sharing with those who belong to the outgroup. In turn, it could have exponential effects in embracing individuals of different races and prospering, as opposed to being inhibited, by their presence and contributions.

A goal directed top-down model might eventually influence automatic encoding of racial categorization. Although this encoding happens in less than a second, differentiation of between in-group and outgroup sets, which occurs around 250 ms, is secondary to differentiation between facial and nonfacial stimuli which occurs at approximately 170 ms (Ito, Thompson, & Cacioppo, 2004) Although this difference is not much, ingroup/outgroup differentiation does not automatically imply bias. Researchers found that evaluative bias not emerge until 500 ms, when affect influenced categorization tasks. This bias is more easily equated to a group where some members may reflect certain stereotypic qualities, as opposed to individual exemplars that may exhibit superior qualities outside of a stereotypic perspective. Therefore, a goal of recognizing persons in outgroup populations as individuals may influence feedback operations that will eventually change the implicit attitude of the outgroup members as a whole.

Goal directed initiatives, contextual priming, and various models of predicting and explaining behavior all point to the subjectivity of measuring interracial interactions. Although there is definite salience that Whites exhibit a tremendous amount of ingroup bias on both implicit and neurological measures, the shaping of statistics and subsequent interpretations makes it difficult to wrap all these findings into one sound conclusion. However, one facet yet to be mentioned is the influence of self-generated information processing on stereotype activation. If an individual has more ease retrieving information regarding positive associations with Blacks, one is more likely to view Blacks in a positive manner (Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2005). Making these associations more accessible and more prevalent in our society will aid in building positive interactions in our interracial communities. Given a positive context in which Blacks are viewed will in turn influence positive implicit associations. Decreased implicit racist attitudes will decrease the need for compensatory reactions on explicit measures. The higher concordance between implicit and explicit attitudes will alleviate impaired executive function, allowing more cognitive energies to be focused on tasks at hand. Reduced racism, either implicit or explicit, will also lead to guilt reduction. This will contribute to overall greater productivity, social harmony and, quite possibly, greatly improve the mental and physical wellbeing of our country’s people.

Implications for these findings are useful when we consider recent historical events. Racial attitudes are shown to be malleable. Because of the constant bombardment of negative images associated with Blacks, an automatic feeling of discomfort or threat associated with this race is rampant and pervasive throughout our society. However, while priming seems to work both ways, association with positive African American exemplars seems to lessen a pro-White bias. More and more Black persons are highlighted for good and courageous deeds. With our new President-elect, Barak Obama, and first lady, Michelle Obama, this trend will hopefully continue and have a trickle down effect for Whites and Blacks alike. Interracial interaction will continue to grow in our society. It is time that we “face the science” and own up to our prejudices in order to work more effectively with one another. As neuroscience, psychology, and politics converge, it will infiltrate nearly every facet of our communities. We still have a long way to go, but with the help of experts across various fields, and races, working together, we may just see our country embody the ideal of liberty and justice for all. We may one day truly become the United States of America.

Aberson, C.L., Shoemaker, C. & Tomolillo, C. (2004). Implicit bias and contact: the role of interethnic friendships. Journal of Social Psychology. 144. 335-47.

Amodio, D.M., Harmon-Jones, E., Devine P.G., Curtin, J.J., Hartley, S.L  & Covert, A.E.(2004). Neural signals for the detection of unintentional race bias. Psychological Science. 15. 88-93.

Amodio, D.M., Devine, P.G. & Harmon-Jones, E. (2007) A dynamic model of guilt implications for motivation and self-regulation in the context of prejudice. Psychological Science. 18. 524-30.

Baron, A.S. & Banajii, M.R. (2006). The development of implicit attitudes. Evidence of                        race evaluations from ages 6 and 10 and adulthood. Psychological Science. 17.                       53-8.

Bartholow, B.D., Dickter, C.L. & Sestir, M.A. (2006). Stereotype activation and control          of race bias: cognitive control of inhibition and its impairment by alcohol.                              Journal of Perspective Social Psychology. 90. 272-87.

Cunningham, W.A., Johnson M.K., Raye, C.L., Gatenby, J., Gore, J.C. & Banagi, M.R. (2004) Separable neural components in the processing of black and white faces. Psychological Science. 15. 806-13.

Dasgupta, N. & Greenwald, A.G. (2001). On the malleability of automatic attitudes: combating automatic prejudice with images of admired and disliked individuals. Journal on Perspective Social Psychology. 81. 800-14.

Devine, P.G., Plant, E.A., Amodio, D.M., Harmon-Jones, E. & Vance, S.L. (2002). The regulation of explicit and implicit race bias: the role of motivations to respond without prejudice. Journal on Perspective Social Psychology. 82. 835-48.

Frantz, C.M., Cuddy, A.J., Burnett, M., Ray, H. & Hart, A. (2004). A threat in the  computer: the race implicit association test as a stereotype threat experience.  Perspective Social Psychology Bulletin. 30. 1611-24.

Gawronski B & Bodenhausen, G.V. (2005). Accessibility effects on implicit social cognition: the role of knowledge activation and retrieval experiences. Journal of Perspective Social Psychology. 89. 672-85.

Hart, A.J., Whalen, P.J., Shin, L.M., McInerney, S.C., Fischer, H. & Rauch, S.L., (2000).  Differential response in the human amygdala to racial outgroup vs ingroup face stimuli. Neuroreport. 11. 2351-5.

Harris, L.T., Fiske, S.T. (2006). Dehumanizing the lowest of the low: neuroimaging responses to extreme out-groups. Psychological Science. 17. 847-53.

Ito, T.A, Thompson, E., & Cacioppo, J.T. (2004). Tracking the timecourse of social perception: the effects of racial cues on event-related brain potentials.  Perspective Social Psychology Bulletin. 30. 1267-80.

Ito, T.A., Chiao, K.W., Devine P.G., Lorig, T.S. & Cacioppo J.T. (2006). The influence of facial feedback on race bias. Psychological Science. 17. 256-61.

Kinoshita S.& Peek-O’Leary M. (2005). Does the compatibility effect in the race Implicit Association Test reflect familiarity or affect? Psychological Bulletin Review. 12.            442-52.

Knuston, K.M., Mah, L. Manly, C.F. Grafman, J. (2007). Neural correlates of automatic beliefs about gender and race. Human Brain Mapp. 28. 915-30.

Olson, M.A & Fazio, R.H. (2003). Relations between implicit measures of  prejudice:  what are we measuring? Psychological Science. 14. 636-9.

Phelps, E.A., O’Connor, K.J., Cunningham, W.A., Funayama, E.S., Gatenby, J.C., Gore,   J.C. & Banaji, M.R. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation   predicts amygdala activation. Cognitive Neuroscience. 12. 729-38.

Phelps, E.A., Cannistraci, C.J. & Cunningham, W.A. (2003). Intact performance on an indirect measure of race bias following amygdala damage. Neuropsyhchologia. 41. 203-8.

Richeson, J.A., Baird, A.A., Gordon, H.L., Heatherton, T.F., Wyland, C.L., Trawalter, S. & Shelton, J.N. (2003). An fMRI investigation of the impact of interracial contact on executive function. Natural Neuroscience. 6. 1323-8.

Richeson J.A. & Shelton, J.N. (2003). When prejudice does not pay: effects of interracial  contact on executive function. Psychological Science. 14. 287-90.

Richeson, J.A. & Trawalter, S. (2005). Why do interracial interactions impair executive  function? A resource depletion account. Journal of Perspective Social  Psychology. 88. 934-47.

Salvatore J. & Shelton, J.N. (2007). Cognitive costs of exposure to racial prejudice. Psychological Science. 18. 810-5.

Shelton, J.N., Richeson J.A., Salvatore, J. & Trawalter, S. (2005). Ironic effects of racial  bias during interracial interactions. Psychological Science. 16. 397-402.

Suedfeld, P. (2004). Racism in the brain; Or is it racism on the brain. Psychological  Inquiry. 15. 298-302.

Vanman, E.J., Saltz, J.L., Nathan, L.R. & Warren, J.A. (2004). Racial discrimination by low-prejudiced whites. Facial movements as implicit measures of attitudes related to behavior. Psychological Science. 15. 711-4.

Wheeler, M.E. & Fiske, S.T. (2005). Controlling racial prejudice: social-cognitive goals  affect amygdala and stereotype activation. Psychological Science. 16. 56-63.

About the Author

Anna Hickner is a graduate fellow at Diversity Spectrum.

She is currently a doctoral student at the Center for Professional Psychology at George Washington University where she serves as a first year representative on the Faculty Committee, as well as acts as a liaison between GWU and Diversity Spectrum.

As an Alumnae of Saint Mary’s College in Notre Dame, Indiana, Anna obtained her Bachelor’s degree in Psychology with minors in Biology and Spanish and graduated summa cum laude. During her college career, Anna also had the fortune to study in Spain and Honduras, participate in choir and the step team, and conduct research with the Center for Women’s Intercultural Leadership.

After graduating Anna volunteered in Costa Rica as a school psychologist in a boarding school for impoverished teenaged girls. She was also recognized and published in the United States Catholic Mission Association Magazine for her musical compositions for the school’s 9th grade graduation.

Her current interests in psychology include multicultural/diversity issues, women’s health, and she hopes to eventually work on an international level. In her free time Anna enjoys reading, working out, movies, traveling, and playing piano. Anna is very excited to be part of the Diversity Spectrum team!

---

Add this page to your favorite Social Bookmarking websites