The generalizability of gender bias: Testing the effects of contextual, explicit, and implicit sexism on labor arbitration decisions.

Law and Human Behavior 2015, Vol. 39, No. 5, 525–537

© 2015 American Psychological Association 0147-7307/15/$12.00 http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000139

The Generalizability of Gender Bias: Testing the Effects of Contextual, Explicit, and Implicit Sexism on Labor Arbitration Decisions Erik J. Girvan

Grace Deason

University of Oregon

University of Wisconsin–La Crosse

Eugene Borgida This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

University of Minnesota Decades of social-psychological research show that gender bias can result from features of the social context and from individual-level psychological predispositions. Do these sources of bias impact legal decisions, which are frequently made by people subject to factors that have been proposed to reduce bias (training and accountability)? To answer the question, we examined the potential for 3 major socialpsychological theories of gender bias (role-congruity theory, ambivalent sexism, and implicit bias) to predict outcomes of labor arbitration decisions. In the first study, undergraduate students and professional arbitrators made decisions about 2 mock arbitration cases in which the gender of the employee-grievants was experimentally manipulated. Student participants’ decisions showed the predicted gender bias, whereas the decisions of experienced professionals did not. Individual-level attitudes did not predict the extent of the observed bias and accountability did not attenuate it. In the second study, arbitrators’ explicit and implicit gender attitudes were significant predictors of their decisions in published cases. The laboratory and field results suggest that context, expertise, and implicit and explicit attitudes are relevant to legal decision-making, but that laboratory experiments alone may not fully capture the nature of their effect on legal professionals’ decisions in real cases. Keywords: accountability, ambivalent sexism, arbitration, expertise, implicit bias Supplemental materials: http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/lhb0000139.supp

matter to the latter (Bornstein, 1999; Mitchell, 2012). This is especially true for sensitive, politicized topics like sexism and racism, in which the temptation to act on the untested implications of research may be great. For example, recently, insights from decades of social– cognitive research on implicit attitudes and stereotypes— known generally as “implicit bias”— have captured the legal imagination with transformative consequences (Borgida & Girvan, 2015; Greenwald & Krieger, 2006; Levinson & Smith, 2012). Notwithstanding the popularity of implicit bias as a catalyst of calls for legal doctrinal or procedural change, there is almost no research examining whether such theories generalize to the decisions of legal professionals. Evidence from laboratory studies in other professional contexts suggests that implicit biases do affect decisions (see, e.g., Green et al., 2007; Sabin & Greenwald, 2012), and measures of implicit bias have predicted discriminatory outcomes in a variety of workplace behaviors, including hiring (Agerstrom & Rooth, 2011; Rooth, 2010), education (van den Bergh, Denessen, Hornstra, Voeten, & Holland, 2010), voting (Payne et al., 2010), and use of force by police during arrests (Goff, Jackson, Di Leone, Culotta, & DiTomasso, 2014). However, in experimental studies involving legal professionals, these individuals frequently exhibit implicit bias on standard measures but nevertheless make unbiased decisions (Levinson & Young, 2010; Rachlinski, Johnson, Wistrich, & Guthrie, 2008). Moving outside of controlled laboratory experiments, there is no prior research of which we are aware that tests the impact of implicit attitudes or stereotypes on decisions made by legal professionals in actual cases.

A little learning is a dangerous thing. Drink deep, or taste not the Pierian Spring; There shallow drafts intoxicate the brain, and drinking largely sobers us again. —Alexander Pope (1711), An Essay on Criticism

A central concern at the intersection of psychology and law is the extent to which research in the former applies in contexts that

This article was published Online First June 1, 2015. Erik J. Girvan, School of Law, University of Oregon; Grace Deason, Department of Psychology, University of Wisconsin–La Crosse; Eugene Borgida, Department of Psychology, University of Minnesota. We thank National Academy of Arbitrators Research and Education Foundation, the American Psychology – Law Society, and The Center for the Study of Political Psychology at the University of Minnesota for their financial support of this research. None of these organizations, however, bears any responsibility for the scientific work and/or interpretations reported herein. The work could not have been accomplished without the diligent help of Ela Gabrys, Karina Kuhrt, Matthew Postma, Joseph Dalle Molle, John Alden, and Autumn Chen. Special thanks to the participants in the 2013 Implicit Bias, Philosophy, and Psychology Conference at the University of Sheffield for their valuable comments on this research and to The Leverhulme (Grant number IN-058) for making the conference possible. Correspondence concerning this article should be addressed to Erik J. Girvan, 1221 University of Oregon, Eugene, OR 97403-1221. E-mail: [email protected] 525

This document is copyrighted by the American Psychological Association or one of its allied publishers. This article is intended solely for the personal use of the individual user and is not to be disseminated broadly.

526

GIRVAN, DEASON, AND BORGIDA

Our primary goal is to begin to fill this gap by examining whether and how the psychological processes that underlie gender discrimination affect the decisions of legal professionals. We present the results of an experimental laboratory study and a correlational field study, each examining the implications of three prominent theories of sexism (i.e., role congruity theory, ambivalent sexism, implicit gender attitudes) in the context of labor arbitration decisions. In addition, we test the effects of two features of those settings proposed to attenuate bias: Training and accountability. Consistent with prior work, the laboratory and field results suggest that implicit and explicit attitudes are relevant to legal decisionmaking, but that laboratory experiments may not fully capture the nature of their effect on legal professionals’ decisions in real cases.

Social-Psychological Perspectives on Gender Bias Decisions are potentially impacted by gender bias in three different ways: Incongruity between general social stereotypes connecting certain occupations with assumptions about the gender of individuals who work there, explicit or consciously held attitudes about gender, and implicit gender bias (Heilman, 2012).

Role Congruity Theory The magnitude of promale gender bias appears to be rather modest overall, but becomes pronounced when the gender of an individual is inconsistent with gendered stereotypes associated with the setting (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Wood & Eagly, 2010). Lyness and Heilman (2006), for example, found that for uppermiddle and senior-level managers in stereotypically masculine line positions (e.g., business management and operations management) performance evaluations of men were significantly higher than those of women, whereas for managers in stereotypically feminine staff positions (e.g., human resources and administration), differences in performance evaluations for women and men were not significantly different (for meta-analyses see Bowen, Swim, & Jacobs, 2000; Swim, Borgida, Maruyama, & Myers, 1989). Experimental and field research into the effects of gender stereotypes on other employment decisions, such as hiring, promotion, and work assignments, reach a similar conclusion (Davison & Burke, 2000; Olian, Schwab, & Haberfeld, 1988; Tosi & Einbender, 1985). Thus, at baseline, in stereotypically masculine jobs but perhaps not elsewhere, women tend to be treated more negatively than men.

Explicit Gender Attitudes Individual-level psychological predispositions also impact the extent of gender bias. Ambivalent Sexism theory (Glick & Fiske, 1996) identifies two main dimensions of attitudes toward women. Hostile sexism involves “sexist antipathy toward women based on an ideology of male dominance, male superiority, and a hostile form of sexuality” (Fiske & Glick, 1995, p. 98). In contrast, benevolent sexism involves “a set of interrelated attitudes toward women that are sexist in terms of viewing women stereotypically and in restricted roles but that are subjectively positive in feeling tone” (Glick & Fiske, 1996, p. 491; Glick, Diebold, BaileyWerner, & Zhu, 1997). Hostile and benevolent sexism are known to guide individual reactions to women in the workplace but in

different ways (Cikara & Fiske, 2009). Levels of hostile sexism, but not benevolent sexism, have been found to predict more negative evaluations of a female candidate for a masculine occupational role (Masser & Abrams, 2004; also see Sakalli-Ugurlu & Beydogan, 2002). Levels of benevolent sexism, in contrast, predict prejudice toward women who violate their traditional spousal role by engaging in infidelity (Viki & Abrams, 2002), are associated with a greater tendency toward victim-blaming in cases of acquaintance rape (Abrams, Viki, Masser, & Bohner, 2003; Viki, Massey, & Masser, 2005), and predict paternalistic discrimination in the workplace, including overhelping, taking over, and limiting the responsibilities of women (Cikara, Lee, Fiske, & Glick, 2009; Glick & Fiske, 2007).

Implicit Gender Attitudes Implicit attitudes, distinct from consciously endorsed beliefs and evaluations, reflect automatic associations between attitude objects and categorical attributes (i.e., stereotypes), automatic evaluations of the attitude object (i.e., attitudes), or both (Amodio & Devine, 2006; Blair, Dasgupta, & Glaser, 2015; Rudman & Ashmore, 2007). Reaction time measures of implicit attitudes often predict judgment and behavior better than measures of explicit attitudes, particularly in socially sensitive domains like those involving intergroup relations (Fazio & Olson, 2003; Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; for a critique see Oswald, Mitchell, Blanton, Jaccard, & Tetlock, 2013). Research on implicit gender attitudes in professional settings is relatively sparse, but results suggest that such attitudes operate in the workplace. For example, although implicit attitudes toward women tend to be positive (Rudman & Goodwin, 2004), men who anticipated a meeting with a female supervisor revealed more negative implicit attitudes toward women, in general, relative to men who expected a meeting with a subordinate or equal-status female coworker (Richeson & Ambady, 2001).

Possible Moderators of Gender Bias in Legal Decisions Critics of the relevance of laboratory research to understanding decisions in professional settings assert that common features of real-world situations may reduce or eliminate the effects of such bias (e.g., Landy, 2008; Mitchell, 2012). Tetlock and Mitchell (2009), for example, argue that “there are daunting obstacles to generalizing from stylized, low-stakes lab experiments to complex, high-stakes workplaces that have often erected institutional barriers—training and accountability procedures—against unlawful discrimination” (p. 16). However, there is little research testing whether accountability and training do eliminate bias, particularly in legal decisions.

Accountability Accountability is “the implicit or explicit expectation that one may be called on to justify one’ beliefs, feelings, and actions to others” (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999, p. 255). This expectation may appear in various forms (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock & Lerner, 1999), but the type of accountability most likely to check bias is one that induces integrative complexity, an intensive style of thought characterized by recognition of the multiple facets of a


GENERALIZABILITY OF GENDER BIAS

situation and preemptive self-criticism. Integratively complex thinking is most likely to occur when individuals know before they make a decision that they will be accountable to a knowledgeable, legitimate authority for the process by which they make a decision, but do not know the preferences of that authority other than that it is interested in fairness (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). This thinking style minimizes the use of heuristics and other cognitive shortcuts, and causes participants to incorporate more facts into the decisionmaking process (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999; Tetlock, Skitka, & Boettger, 1989). In this fashion, accountability may work to prevent or attenuate the use of gender stereotypes. A small number of experiments examine the impact of accountability on the stereotyping process. In support of the notion that accountability eliminates bias, Ford, Gambino, Lee, Mayo, and Ferguson (2004) found that food industry managers made racially biased evaluations of job applicants when they were told to base their evaluations on their gut feeling, but not when they were instructed to use careful deliberation and to discuss the decision with a supervisor. Unfortunately, the study design confounded affective versus cognitive decision-making with the absence or presence of accountability, precluding a clean causal inference. In a study of gender stereotypes, Pendry and Macrae (1994) showed that students in a control condition activated stereotypic associations related to women, whereas students in an accountability condition activated stereotypes associated with the more precise subtype of businesswoman. The results of other studies suggest that accountability has no appreciable effect on social bias. For example, Foschi (1996) found that accountability did not moderate the extent to which students in a dyadic decision task exhibited gender bias in an evaluation. Similarly, in a series of studies involving undergraduates and law students, Girvan (2012) found that the effects of stereotypes on participants’ mock legal decisions was not moderated by accountability or by a financial incentive. Finally, outside of the laboratory, Dobbin, Schrage, and Kalev (2009) found mixed evidence for the extent to which accountability, along with various equal opportunity policies and procedures, increased workplace diversity.

Training and Experience A substantial body of research on expert decision-making suggests that experts make more accurate decisions in their domain of expertise because they are better able to distinguish between relevant and irrelevant information (Haider & Frensch, 1996; Weiss & Shanteau, 2003). Moreover, uncertainty or ambiguity in a workplace decision is a risk factor for biased judgment (Fiske & Taylor, 2007; Yzerbyt, Schadron, Leyens, & Rocher, 1994). If expertise reduces ambiguity by enabling professionals to focus on accepted decision criteria that provide an alternative to gender stereotypes and attitudes, then expertise is likely to functionally disable the use of nonspecified or illegitimate criteria in the decision-making process (Girvan, 2012). The results of studies of the effects of training and experience are also mixed (see Ford et al., 2004), but there is reason to believe that experts may, under certain circumstances, be equipped to avoid bias. Weiss and Shanteau (2003) found that management students but not hiring professionals used irrelevant information (e.g., age and gender) in hiring. In their words, “it is not easy to

527

ignore something as obvious as age or gender, even if required by the guidelines. Professionals, however, followed strategies to do precisely that” (p. 10). This evidence suggests that experts may learn strategies that allow them to make decisions in their domain of expertise without resorting to stereotypes.

The Arbitration Context To examine the implications of psychological theories of gender bias in legal decisions, and the potential for accountability and training to moderate such biases, we selected the context of labor arbitration. Heavily favored by Federal law (Drahozal, 2014; Sternlight, 2005), arbitration is the primary process through which employees who are members of a union resolve disputes with their employers. Labor arbitrators make binding judgments as to whether employers’ decisions were discriminatory; as such, this context has substantial theoretical and practical significance for checking gender bias. The labor arbitration context also offers a stringent test of social-psychological theories. The cases that require arbitration tend to represent the more difficult, complex, and ambiguous disputes, and labor arbitrators have an almost unparalleled degree of discretion with respect to the outcome of a matter before them—situational features that tend to enable and even facilitate unintended social bias (Dovidio & Gaertner, 2000; Souchon et al., 2010). Finally, little is known about how the arbitrators’ attitudes influence their decisions. The results of a small number of prior studies show that arbitrators’ decisions are influenced by their values (Simpson & Martocchio, 1997) and in the case of work-family conflict, their political ideology (Biernat & Malin, 2008), but none that directly link arbitrators’ explicit and implicit gender attitudes to their decisions.

Hypotheses As indicated in the review above, research on the psychology of gender bias in professional legal decisions is sparse and mixed. Nevertheless, the theoretical processes outlined in the foregoing literature review have some clear predictions for the factors that lead to and moderate gender bias. Figure 1 summarizes those relationships. As depicted in Figure 1, we hypothesize the following:

Figure 1. Multifaceted model of gender bias in the workplace.


528

Hypothesis 1: In a stereotypically masculine work domain, participants will tend to favor male employee-grievants in their arbitration decisions and disfavor female employee-grievants. Hypothesis 2: Participants who are high in hostile (benevolent) explicit gender bias will tend to favor male (female) employee-grievants in their arbitration decisions and disfavor female (male) employee-grievants.


Hypothesis 3: Participants who have relatively positive implicit associations with men (women) will tend to favor male (female) employee-grievants in their arbitration decisions and disfavor female (male) employee-grievants. Hypothesis 4: Participants with arbitration training and experience will tend to exhibit significantly less gender bias in their arbitration decisions than those without training and experience. Hypothesis 5a: Participants who believe that they will be accountable to a legitimate authority for making fair decisions will evidence a higher level of integrative complexity in the explanations of their arbitration decisions than those who are not accountable. Hypothesis 5b: Such participants will exhibit significantly less gender bias in their arbitration decisions than those who are not accountable. We conducted two empirical studies to test these hypotheses. Study 1 was experimental: Participants were randomly assigned to make decisions about male or female target individuals in two mock arbitration cases. Study 2 was correlational, involving an investigation of the relationship between arbitrators’ explicit and implicit gender attitudes and their published decisions.

Study 1 Method Participants. Students. Student participants were recruited in undergraduate psychology courses at a large midwestern university. A total of 213 undergraduate psychology students completed both parts of the study in exchange for extra credit. Implicit and explicit attitude measures and demographic characteristics for 98 of these participants were not recorded due to incompatibility of the survey software platform and the settings, applications, or operating system on participants’ computers. ␹2 tests comparing rates of data loss across the experimental conditions indicated that data loss did not vary systematically by condition (Student Grievant Conditions: ␹2(7) ⫽ 4.10, p ⫽ .77, Student Accountability Conditions: ␹2(1) ⫽ .35, p ⫽ .55). Thus, the loss can be considered to be completely at random (see, e.g., Sterne et al., 2009). Characteristics of the remaining student participants were as follows: Student participants’ ages ranged from 18 to 40 years old (Mdn ⫽ 19); 75% were women; 51% White/Caucasian; 17% Asian, 6% Black/African American, 3% Latino, and 4% Other; 42% held, or had held, a full-time job; 9% had been union members; and 5% had prior experience with arbitration, although none had arbitrated a case.

Arbitrators. To obtain a sample of individuals with arbitration training and experience, we located publicly available lists of the names of people who are registered, qualified, or certified to arbitrate cases and for whom contact information was given (see, e.g., Minnesota State Courts, 2014). A total of 959 people from 43 U.S. states were identified in this way. Multiple contact attempts were made for each individual using a combination of email, mail, and telephone calls. Of the attempted contacts, 144 resulted in an affirmative indication that the contact information was no longer valid (e.g., returned e-mail or mail, or message that the phone number was out-of-service). Approximately 15% of the remaining 815 people who were solicited responded (to e-mail and mail communications) or were successfully reached (through telephone communications). Approximately 78% of these agreed to participate. A total of 96 individuals with arbitration training and experience completed both parts of the study. Each participant received a $10 Starbucks gift card as compensation. As with the students, implicit and explicit attitude measures and demographic characteristics for 44 of the participants were missing, but data loss did not vary systematically by condition (Arbitrator Grievant Conditions: ␹2(7) ⫽ 11.16, p ⫽ .13, Arbitrator Accountability Conditions: ␹2(1) ⫽ .12, p ⫽ .74). Approximately 21% of the arbitrator participants were women, ages ranged from 41 to 88 (Mdn ⫽ 64), and 100% self-identified as White/Caucasian. Sixty percent of the arbitrators were lawyers. The highest level of education completed by the arbitrators ranged from a bachelor’s degree to Ph.D.; 63% had received a J.D. The median number of cases arbitrated was 500 total and 16 cases involving employment-related issues. Materials and procedure. Part 1. Measures were administered over the Internet using a combination of Inquisit (2009) and a customized survey platform. Student and arbitrator participants who indicated willingness to participate in the study were emailed a hyperlink that they could use to access the study materials. In Part 1, participants completed Male and Female Single-Target Implicit Association Tests (STIATs; Bluemke & Friese, 2008), the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory (Glick & Fiske, 1996), a three-item measure of political ideology, and demographics questions. The three attitude measures were presented in a random order. Responses to the Hostile Sexism and Benevolent Sexism subscales of the Ambivalent Sexism Inventory and the political ideology items were averaged, with appropriate items reverse coded, to produce variables for use in the analysis. Reliability of these scales was acceptable (Hostile Sexism, ␣ ⫽ .89, M ⫽ 3.44, SD ⫽ 1.06; Benevolent Sexism, ␣ ⫽ .82, M ⫽ 3.68, SD ⫽ .98; Political Ideology, ␣ ⫽ .87, M ⫽ 3.58, SD ⫽ .84). In addition, difference scores were computed for the ST-IATs using the algorithm recommended by Bluemke and Friese (2008) (Male ST-IAT, M ⫽ .05, SD ⫽ .31; Female ST-IAT, M ⫽ .07, SD ⫽ .26). All individual difference measures were converted to standardized scores for the purposes of the regression analysis, reported below. Part 2. A few days after completing Part 1, participants received a hyperlink that they could use to access the materials for Part 2 of the study. On clicking the link, participants who were randomly assigned to the accountability condition read that a panel of professional arbitrators would contact them to discuss their decision, were asked to consent to the contact, and were asked to provide a phone number at which the professional arbitrator could



reach them (see the online supplemental materials for the complete verbatim text of the accountability manipulation). Next, participants read and responded to questions about two mock arbitration cases, one involving a male and the other a female employee, each of whom had been terminated from their job. To prevent order effects, the sex of the grievant and the order of the cases were randomly assigned. (The parental status of the grievant was also manipulated. The results of this manipulation did not affect any of the analyses reported below and will be reported separately.) To create the fictional cases, the authors read a random selection of approximately 20 published arbitration decisions involving the termination of an employee, noting common features of the facts of the underlying cases as well as the layout and presentation. Based on this qualitative review, two truncated but realistic arbitration cases were created (see the online supplemental materials). Both describe, through stipulated facts and argument sections, the circumstances surrounding the termination of an employee in a blue-collar, stereotypically masculine job (i.e., a construction worker and a railroad yard pump-station operator). Two versions of each case were prepared, one in which the employee-grievant’s name and relevant pronouns indicated that she was a woman, and another in which the name and pronouns indicated that he was a man. In a pilot test of the cases using a student sample (N ⫽ 100), 54% of the participants decided against the grievant in each scenario, which was not significantly different from an even 50 –50 split (intercept-only binomial-probit model ␤ ⫽ 0.04, z ⫽ 0.93, p ⫽ .353), suggesting that, overall, the scenarios lacked an obviously correct solution and thus were ambiguous. Further, grievant gender was a significant predictor (␤ ⫽ 0.57, p ⫽ .010) of decisions, indicating that participants had a tendency to decide to uphold the termination (i.e., to decide against the grievant) more often when the grievant was female (see Figure 2). After reading each case, participants indicated their decision on the case by selecting one of two options: The employee’s discharge should be upheld (in favor of employer) or the employee’s discharge should be overturned (in favor of employee/union). Participants also indicated the level of certainty associated with their decision on an 11-point Likert scale labeled with percentages

Figure 2. .01.

Decisions by grievant gender for each sample. ⴱ p ⬍ .05; ⴱⴱ p ⬍

529

ranging from 0% to 100%, provided an open-ended justification for their decision, and completed 16 items designed to assess impressions of the warmth and competence of the grievant and company. After indicating their decision on the second case, as a manipulation check, participants completed multiple-choice items for each case in which they selected the name of the employee and reason for the discharge from a set of four alternatives. The study concluded with a debriefing page that provided additional information about the purpose of the study and the hypotheses.

Results We conceptualized participants’ dichotomous decisions as reflecting a latent assessment of the relative strength of the employers’ justifications for their termination decisions (0 ⫽ termination not justified, 1 ⫽ termination justified). Accordingly, all analyses of participants’ termination decisions were conducted using binomial-probit generalized linear models, which use the cumulative normal distribution as a link function (Kutner, Nachtsheim, Neter, & Li, 2005). All analyses used clustered robust standard errors to account for lack of independence in observations, which adjusts standard errors to account for the correlation between observations within a cluster and avoid alpha inflation (Cameron & Miller, 2010; see also Arai, 2009). Manipulation check. We retained data from 89 arbitrators (92.7%) and 199 students (93.4%) who correctly answered both manipulation check questions. Of the participants who passed the manipulation check, complete data (i.e., Part 1 and Part 2) were available for 50 arbitrators and 111 students. To maximize statistical power, we tested our experimental/quasi-experimental hypotheses (H1, H4, H5) using the full set of responses from participants who passed the manipulation check and the individual difference hypotheses (H2, H3) using a reduced set of responses from the participants for whom complete Part 1 and Part 2 data were available. Descriptive analysis. The zero-order correlations among the gender-related attitudes, participant gender, participant age, and arbitrator status are provided in the online supplemental materials. Table 1 provides the mean, standard deviation, and results of t tests comparing the explicit and implicit gender attitudes for arbitrators and students. Compared with the students, arbitrators had significantly lower levels of ambivalent sexism and significantly more positive implicit attitudes toward both men and women. Across both samples, 50% and 62% of the participants decided against the grievant in the pump station and construction site scenarios, respectively. This percentage was not significantly different from a 50 –50 split for the pump station scenario (interceptonly binomial-probit ␤ ⫽ 0.07, CI[-.07, .22], p ⫽ .315) but was significantly different for the construction site scenario (interceptonly binomial-probit ␤ ⫽ 0.23, CI[.08, .37], p ⫽ .003), suggesting that participants in Study 1 found the latter scenario less ambiguous than the former. Role congruity theory. To test Hypothesis 1, using decisions (N ⫽ 161) from student participants not assigned to the accountability condition, we regressed termination decisions on a dummy variable representing grievant gender (0 ⫽ man, 1 ⫽ woman) as well as several control variables: scenario (0 ⫽ construction site, 1 ⫽ pump station), participant age, and participant gender (0 ⫽ man, 1 ⫽ woman; model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(5) ⫽ 13.63, p ⫽


530

Table 1 Explicit and Implicit Gender Attitudes of Arbitrators and Students Attitude


Hostile Sexism Benevolent Sexism Male ST-IAT Female ST-IAT

Arbitrators M M M M

⫽ ⫽ ⫽ ⫽

2.79, SD ⫽ 1.04 3.17, SD ⫽ .96 .13, SD ⫽ .29 .13, SD ⫽ .25

.018; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .10). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes was .28, .99, and 1.00, respectively, exceeding the conventional threshold of .80 for medium and large effects (Cohen, 1992). As predicted, grievant gender was a significant predictor of participants’ decisions (␤ ⫽ 0.52, CI[.06, .99], p ⫽ .026), reflecting a 20% increased likelihood of an adverse decision for female compared to male grievant-employees [see Figure 2, Study 1 (Students)]. Omission of any of the control variables did not materially affect the results of the analysis. Participant gender did not interact with grievant gender to significantly moderate this effect (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.73, CI[⫺1.66, .23], p ⫽ .140), nor did grievant gender interact significantly with scenario (␤ ⫽ 0.58, CI[⫺0.13, 1.30], p ⫽ .111). Professional training. To Test Hypothesis 4, we regressed decisions (N ⫽ 570) on grievant gender and professional training (student ⫽ 0, arbitrator ⫽ 1) and the interaction between them, as well as control variables: scenario, accountability, and grievant parental status (grievant parental status was manipulated but did not at all impact the Study 1 results; model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(6) ⫽ 12.54, p ⫽ .051, McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, PseudoR2 ⫽ .04). A post hoc power analysis of the model indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) was .74, 1.00, and 1.00, respectively. The coefficients for grievant gender and professional training were marginally significant (␤ ⫽ 0.24, CI[⫺.02, .50], p ⫽ .070) and significant (␤ ⫽ 0.59, CI[.19, .98], p ⫽ .003), respectively. Both effects were qualified by the predicted grievant gender x professional training interaction (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.53, CI[⫺1.02, ⫺.04], p ⫽ .035). Removing the control variables did not substantively alter this result. In support of Hypothesis 4, post hoc simple slopes analysis showed that student participants had a marginally significant tendency to decide cases against female grievants (␤ ⫽ 0.24, CI[⫺.02, .51], p ⫽ .069), whereas grievant gender was not a significant predictor of decisions among arbitrators (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.29, CI[⫺.71, .13], p ⫽ .185) [see Figure 2, Study 1 (Arbitrators)]. Accountability. Two research assistants who had completed a certification program in coding integrative complexity (Suedfeld, 2005) and were blind to condition rated the level of integrative complexity of more than half of the participants’ justifications for their decisions. Based on double coding of a random sample of 36 responses, intercoder reliability was adequate for a multidimensional construct (72% complete agreement; Type I interclass correlation ⫽ .51). Disagreements were resolved by averaging the values of the two codes. To Test Hypothesis 5a, we regressed the integrative complexity scores on indicator codes for accountability condition (consented) and accountability condition (declined; 24.7% of participants in

Students M M M M

⫽ ⫽ ⫽ ⫽

3.71, SD ⫽ .98 3.91, SD ⫽ .92 .02, SD ⫽ .32 .05, SD ⫽ .27

t test t(152) t(152) t(152) t(152)

⫽ ⫽ ⫽ ⫽

⫺5.2, ⫺4.5, 2.0, p 2.0, p

p ⬍ .001 p ⬍ .001 ⫽ .053 ⫽ .045

the accountability condition did not consent to be contacted by professional arbitrators regarding the reason for their decision), leaving assignment to the control condition as the comparison category (R2 ⫽ .01, F(2, 547) ⫽ 3.29, p ⫽ .038). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) in the model was .91, 1.00, and 1.00, respectively. Consistent with Hypothesis 5a, the responses of accountable participants who consented to be contacted evidenced significantly higher levels of integrative complexity than those in the control condition (␤ ⫽ 0.21, CI[.01, .42], p ⫽ .041). By contrast, the responses of participants assigned to the accountability condition who declined to be contacted showed levels of integrative complexity similar to those of participants in the control condition (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.06, CI[⫺.36, .24], p ⫽ .697). Given this result, we combined the accountability condition (declined) with the control group in all other analyses. To Test Hypothesis 5b, we reran the model testing H1 in the full sample of participants, adding the higher-order interaction between Accountability and Grievant Gender. In addition, we included the interactions of these with Arbitrator Status to account for the differences in the direction of gender bias in the decision between Students and Arbitrators. Specifically, using the full data set, we added terms for Accountability and the interactions between the indicator code for Accountability ⫻ Grievant Gender, Accountability ⫻ Arbitrator, and the three-way interaction between Accountability ⫻ Grievant Gender ⫻ Arbitrator (model LikelihoodRatio ␹2(9) ⫽ 13.37, p ⫽ .147, McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .04). Neither the coefficient for Accountability, nor any of the higher-order interactions with it, were significant (all ps ⬎ .35). Removing the nonsignificant three-way interaction to test the moderating effects of Accountability collapsing across student and arbitrator samples did not change the result (ps ⬎ .71). A post hoc power analysis of the model indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) was .65, 1.00, and 1.00, respectively. Explicit and implicit attitudes. To Test Hypotheses 2 and 3, using decisions from student and arbitrator participants (N ⫽ 214 and N ⫽ 95, respectively) for whom we had complete data, we regressed decisions on grievant gender, hostile and benevolent sexism scores, Male and Female ST-IAT scores, and the interactions between grievant gender and each of the gender attitude measures. Also included were controls for professional training, scenario, accountability, participant gender, and number of cases arbitrated (model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(13) ⫽ 20.90, p ⫽ .075; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .11). A post hoc power analysis of the model indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) was .28, 1.00, and 1.00, respectively. Multicollinearity of the correlated gender attitude measures was below the most conservative thresh-



old for concern and further investigation (all VIFs ⬍4; O’Brien, 2007). None of the hypothesized interactions between Grievant Gender and any measure of explicit or implicit gender attitude was significant (ps ⬎ .153). To test the possibility that null results may have occurred because gender attitudes operate differently in Students and Arbitrators, we reran the model including all two-way interactions and the three-way interactions between Arbitration Status, Grievant Gender, and each of the Explicit and Implicit Gender Attitudes (model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(22) ⫽ 27.48, p ⫽ .193; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .14). The three-way interactions were nonsignificant (ps ⬎ .235). Multicolinearity across these coefficients was a potential problem (VIFs up to 5.36). Accordingly, we ran the analysis separately for students and arbitrators. For the student subsample (N ⫽ 214), we regressed Decision on the indicator variable for Grievant Gender as well as controls for Scenario, Accountability, and participant characteristics (e.g., gender and age; model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(12) ⫽ 17.228, p ⫽ .141; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .14). Again, none of the interactions between Grievant Gender and participants’ gender attitudes were significant (all ps ⬎ .190). Multicollinearity of the correlated gender attitude measures was below the most conservative threshold for concern and further investigation (all VIFs ⬍4; O’Brien, 2007). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) was .16, .92, and 1.00, respectively. Replicating the analysis in the arbitrator sample (N ⫽ 95), we regressed Decision on the indicator variable for Grievant Gender as well as controls for Scenario, Accountability, Parental Status, and participant characteristics (e.g., gender, age, square-root of the number of arbitration decisions; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .15). Again, the interactions between Grievant Gender and participants’ gender attitudes were not significant (all ps ⬎ .604). Multicolinearity in the model was below the most conservative threshold for further investigation (all VIFs ⬍4; O’Brien, 2007). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) in the model was .10, .61, and .97, respectively. Omission of the control variables, none of which was significant, increased the power of the model (power for small, medium, and large effect sizes .11, .70, and .99, respectively), but did not change the results of the analysis.

Study 1 Discussion The results of Study 1 supported Hypothesis 1. In the stereotypically masculine work domains of construction and a pump station, student participants who were not assigned to the accountability condition tended to decide cases against female grievants, but in favor of male grievants. Although the design does not present a complete test of role congruity theory—there was no stereotypically feminine comparison condition—it is entirely consistent with the theory’s predictions regarding the employment settings in which gender bias against women is most likely to be present. The results of Study 1 did not support Hypotheses 2 or 3. In interaction with grievant gender, neither measures of explicit nor implicit attitudes were significantly related to participants’ decisions. Although these findings are inconsistent with the results of

531

prior research involving student populations suggesting that gender attitudes influence similar judgments (e.g., Wiener, Hurt, Russell, Mannen, & Gasper, 1997), this result is similar to prior studies of legal professionals, in which judges were observed to have implicit biases but that these biases were not related to the judges’ decisions in mock cases (e.g., Levinson & Young, 2010; Rachlinski et al., 2008). Turning to system-level moderators, the results of Study 1 provide strong support for Hypothesis 4. Whereas the students’ decisions evidenced the expected gender bias, the decisions made by the sample of trained, experienced arbitrators did not. To the contrary, and consistent with the results of studies involving coding of actual arbitration decisions, if anything, arbitrators had a (nonstatistically significant) tendency to exhibit a chivalrous or paternalistic decision pattern favoring female grievants. Even so, given the known groups design and substantial differences between the student and arbitrator samples beyond just training and expertise (e.g., age, life experience), drawing strong causal inferences from this result is inappropriate. Finally, in support of Hypothesis 5a, the accountability manipulation increased the level of integrative complexity of participants’ open-ended responses in which they explained the reasons for their decisions. However, contrary to Hypothesis 5b, accountability did not significantly reduce the observed gender bias in participants’ decisions. On the whole, this result is entirely consistent with the weight of the few existing studies that experimentally examine the impact of accountability on social biases (i.e., attitudes and stereotypes) reviewed above but is contrary to the weight of evidence about the moderating effects of accountability on judgment heuristics (e.g., Lerner & Tetlock, 1999).

Study 2 The results of Study 1 provided initial evidence that training and experience, but not accountability, may attenuate gender bias in arbitration decisions. In Study 2, we extended these results by (a) directly examining the prediction of role congruity theory that the gender stereotypicality of a workplace will moderate gender bias and (b) examining the generalizability of the debiasing effects of training and experience to the context of actual arbitration decisions. To do this, we identified published arbitration opinions issued by arbitrators who participated in Study 1 to determine whether arbitrators’ gender-related attitudes are associated with their decisions in actual arbitration cases.

Method Participants. Participants consisted of 40 arbitrators for whom we had measures of implicit and explicit gender attitudes from Study 1 and for whom we were able to locate at least one published arbitration decision in Westlaw’s labor arbitration awards databases (Thomson Reuters, 2012). Demographic characteristics of the participants were as follows: 30% Women, ages ranged from 48 to 80 (Mdn ⫽ 63); 100% self-identified as White/ Caucasian; 72% were lawyers; and the median number of cases arbitrated was 650 general and 16 cases involving employmentrelated issues. Materials and procedure. Arbitrator demographic characteristics and measures of individual differences were collected in


532


Study 1. Arbitration opinions used in the analysis were retrieved using searches of Westlaw arbitration databases for the names and locations of the arbitrators for whom we had data from Part 1 of Study 1. Because of an unequal gender distribution among the grievants in the actual cases, of these, all of the cases involving a female grievant (N ⫽ 56), and a random sample of those involving a male grievant (N ⫽ 56), were selected for inclusion in Study 2. The arbitration opinions that we obtained in our search were randomly ordered before coding. Trained coders, blind to study hypotheses, coded each case for the gender of the grievant (0 ⫽ man, 1 ⫽ woman), the state in which the arbitration hearing was held, the date of the decision, whether the employer was a public or private entity (0 ⫽ public, 1 ⫽ private), and for the decision itself (0 ⫽ uphold the grievance, .45 ⫽ reinstated with partial back pay, .5 ⫽ reinstated without back pay, .55 ⫽ entitled to future opening, and 1 ⫽ uphold the employer’s termination decision or other discipline). In addition, as a measure of the gender stereotypicality of the work setting represented in each case, a trained coder recorded the percentage of employees who are women in the employee-grievant’s occupation (M ⫽ 37.1%, Mdn ⫽ 26.9%, SD ⫽ 30.8%). These percentages were obtained from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics, 2012). Intercoder agreement was 100%. After dropping one case for lack of codable material, the final sample of cases consisted of 111 labor-arbitration cases from arbitrations in 29 U.S. states. Decision dates ranged from 1979 to 2009 (Mdn ⫽ 1999). Fifty-three percent of the cases were Private (vs. Public). Distribution of decisions was as follows: 49% upheld the termination or other discipline, 17% were compromise decisions (e.g., reinstatement without back pay), and 34% found for the employee/grievant.

Results For the analysis in Study 2, we again conceptualized the arbitration decisions as an assessment of the relative strength of the employer’s justification for its termination decision (0 ⫽ not justified, 1 ⫽ justified). Given the proportional data, we used a quasi-binomial probit model to account for over dispersion (Crawley, 2013) and corrected for lack of independence using cluster robust standard errors. Role congruity theory. To test an extension of Hypothesis 1, that is, that in stereotypically masculine (feminine) work domains, arbitrators will tend to favor male (female) employee-grievants, we regressed termination decisions on grievant gender, the gender stereotypicality of the relevant work setting, and their interaction, as well as controls for participant age, gender, experience, the year the case was decided, and whether it was public or private (model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(8) ⫽ 5.52, p ⫽ .700, McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .08). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) was .14, .82, and 1.00, respectively. Neither grievant gender (␤ ⫽ 0.13, CI[⫺.44, .71], p ⫽ .646; see Figure 2) nor the key interaction between grievant gender and gender stereotypicality (␤ ⫽ ⫺.08, CI[⫺.69, .52], p ⫽ .809) were significant predictors. A sensitivity test using a proportional odds model again yielded substantively similar results (Grievant gender ⫻ Workplace gender stereotypicality interaction ␤ ⫽ .04,

CI[⫺1.00, 1.08], p ⫽ .937; model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(6) ⫽ 3.43, p ⫽ .753; R2 ⫽ .04). Explicit and implicit bias. To test Hypotheses 2 and 3, participants’ implicit and explicit gender attitudes were added to the model, along with interactions between each of the attitude measures and grievant gender (model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(12) ⫽ 12.24, p ⫽ .427; McKelvey & Zavoina, 1975, Pseudo-R2 ⫽ .16). Multicollinearity in the model was below the most conservative threshold for further investigation (all VIFs ⬍4; O’Brien, 2007). A post hoc power analysis indicated that the power to detect small (.02), medium (.15), and large (.35) effect sizes (Cohen, 1992) was .12, .77, and .99, respectively. Removing the control variables increased the power, .13, .81, and 1.00, respectively, without substantively changing the results of the analysis. The results indicate that the main effect of grievant gender remained nonsignificant (␤ ⫽ (␤ ⫽ 0.25, CI[⫺.18, .67], p ⫽ .259). However, the Grievant gender ⫻ Benevolent sexism (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.63, CI[⫺1.05, ⫺.21], p ⫽ .003) and grievant gender ⫻ ST-IAT Female (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.65, CI[⫺1.30, ⫺.01], p ⫽ .048) interactions were significant predictors of the termination decision, and the Grievant gender ⫻ Hostile sexism interaction was marginally significant (␤ ⫽ 0.46, CI[⫺.06, .98], p ⫽ .085). An ordinal regression sensitivity test using a proportional odds model yielded substantively similar results: Grievant gender ⫻ Benevolent sexism (␤ ⫽ ⫺1.08, CI[⫺2.02, ⫺.22], p ⫽ .014); Grievant gender ⫻ ST-IAT Female (␤ ⫽ ⫺1.14, CI[⫺2.06, ⫺.22], p ⫽ .015); Grievant gender ⫻ Hostile sexism (␤ ⫽ 0.80, CI[⫺.15, 1.76], p ⫽ .100; model Likelihood-Ratio ␹2(10) ⫽ 14.75, p ⫽ .141; R2 ⫽ .14). Simple-slopes analysis showed that, when the grievant was female, benevolent sexism and implicit attitudes toward women were, respectively, marginally significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.52, CI[⫺1.07, .03], p ⫽ .066) and significant (␤ ⫽ ⫺0.68, CI[⫺1.16, ⫺.19], p ⫽ .006) negative predictors of upholding the termination decision, whereas hostile sexism was a significant positive predictor of upholding termination (␤ ⫽ 0.53, CI[.10, .96], p ⫽ .015). By comparison, none of the arbitrators’ gender-related attitudes were significant predictors of their decisions when the grievant was male (all ps ⱖ .139). As an indication of the practical significance of gender attitudes on decisions, Table 2 gives the marginal effects of a one standard deviation change in arbitrators’ explicit and implicit gender attitudes on the probability of a decision against the grievant.

Study 2 Discussion Study 2 was designed to test the external validity of the finding that arbitrator participants do not exhibit the same bias against Table 2 Marginal Effects of One Unit Change in Arbitrators’ Gender Attitudes (z Scores) on the Probability of an Adverse Arbitration Decision Attitude

Female grievant (%) ⴱ

Hostile Sexism Benevolent Sexism Male ST-IAT Female ST-IAT †

p ⬍ .10.

ⴱ

p ⬍ .05.

20.6 ⫺20.1† 2.4 ⫺26.4ⴱⴱ ⴱⴱ

p ⬍ .01.

Male grievant (%) ⫺7.3 11.2 ⫺1.5 1.6



women as student participants in decisions involving stereotypically masculine work settings. Consistent with Hypothesis 4 and the experimental results in Study 1, grievant gender itself did not significantly affect the decisions of the professionals in the sample of actual labor arbitration cases. Study 2 also extended the results of Study 1 by exploring the influence that arbitrators’ explicit and implicit gender attitudes had on their decisions in actual cases. Here, unlike the experimental results, both benevolent sexism and implicit attitudes toward women were significant predictors of arbitrators’ decisions, and hostile sexism was a marginally significant predictor, all in the hypothesized direction. Although further research is needed, this difference in the laboratory and field results raises the possibility that laboratory studies exploring the influence of explicit and implicit gender attitudes in decisionmaking may underestimate the influence of those attitudes in real-world contexts involving professional legal decision-makers.

General Discussion Social-psychological research has established several theories of how gender bias affects decisions, but critics argue that theories tested in laboratory research do not generalize to professional settings because decision-makers in such contexts have training and are subject to accountability. Claims about the effects of these proposed moderators have not been rigorously tested, and researchers’ consideration of the effects of the social-psychological processes associated with gender bias in professional legal decisions in particular has been very limited. In the studies reported here, we begin to fill these gaps with an examination of labor arbitration decision-making. Arbitrators have wide discretion to make binding decisions in some of the most ambiguous employee grievance cases, making this an ideal context in which to examine the sources and moderators of social bias in professional decisionmaking. In two studies we examined (a) the impact of gender bias from role incongruity, ambivalent sexism, and implicit bias on labor arbitration decisions and (b) the potential for accountability and training to attenuate gender bias. In support of Hypothesis 1, and consistent with prior research, we found that the overall decisions of untrained student participants regarding individuals in stereotypically masculine settings were biased against female grievants. In contrast, and consistent with Hypothesis 4, professional arbitrators’ decisions in mock and real arbitration cases did not show evidence of gender bias from role incongruity, suggesting that training and experience can attenuate at least the broader, socially shared forms of gender bias. We also found, however, that arbitrators’ gender attitudes predicted their decisions in real arbitration cases. Consistent with Hypothesis 5a, participants who believed they would be held accountable to a legitimate authority engaged in a more integratively complex thinking style. Contrary to Hypothesis 5b, however, accountability did not attenuate the effects of the observed gender bias.

Gender Bias in Labor Arbitration Decisions In our experimental study, the results among students are consistent with other research on gender bias in masculine work contexts and the prediction of role congruity theory that women are most likely to experience gender prejudice in domains and on

533

tasks that are stereotypically masculine (Eagly & Karau, 2002; Heilman, 2012). Our results also extend research in this area by including a direct comparison between student participants and professional arbitrators. This allows us to begin to draw conclusions about the generalizability of research conducted on nonprofessional convenience samples, and to directly test claims about moderators of gender bias that are likely to arise in real-world legal decision contexts.

The Potential for Training and Accountability to Attenuate Gender Bias The different decision patterns among students and arbitrators in the experimental study suggests that, as critics of the socialpsychological research argue, there are important differences between the decisions made by trained and untrained decisionmakers that may enable trained professionals to suppress or otherwise control gender bias. Greater accountability in professional contexts is also offered as a reason for the difference of the sort that we found in this study. However, results indicated that although accountability pressure enhanced the integrative complexity of the decision-making process, it did not attenuate gender bias in arbitration decisions. Training and experience remain a compelling explanation for the relative lack of gender bias in the professional arbitrators’ decision pattern. According to the Social Contingency Model, when individuals know before they make a decision that they will be accountable to a knowledgeable, legitimate authority, and know the preferences of that authority, they use the decision criteria preferred by the authority (Lerner & Tetlock, 1999). Expertise in a given domain may similarly enable the use of specific decision criteria that are incompatible with a gender bias or otherwise allow experts to functionally avoid or account for the use of illegitimate criteria (e.g., the sex of the target person) in the decision-making process (for a review see Girvan, 2012). Thus, through their experience, experts may be equipped with specialized knowledge that not only activates an integratively complex thinking style, but also provides information about the correct methods for arriving at a decision.

Implicit and Explicit Attitudes in Actual Legal Decisions The results also provide evidence that implicit and explicit gender attitudes influence legal professionals when they make their actual decisions. With respect to explicit attitudes, we found that arbitrators high in benevolent sexism were more likely to overturn the termination when the grievant was a woman, but not when the grievant was a man: Arbitrators who endorse a protective, paternalistic attitude toward women are more inclined to reject termination of women from their jobs. Benevolent sexism may elicit patronizing discrimination toward women at work (Cikara & Fiske, 2009; Glick & Fiske, 2007; Rudman, Glick, & Phelan, 2007). The results of this study are thus consistent with ambivalent sexism theory and with the chivalry-paternalism thesis described in prior research on arbitration decision-making, which posits that men view themselves as the protectors of all women, who are innocent and defenseless (Bankston, 1976; Bemmels, 1988a, 1988b; Ponak, 1987). This extension of the benevolent


534


sexism research into the legal decision context provides new insight into how paternalistic gender attitudes may be a dominant influence on decisions in naturalistic contexts. In addition, consistent with the findings of research conducted on other student samples (e.g., Masser & Abrams, 2004), arbitrators higher in hostile sexism were marginally more likely to uphold the termination of a female grievant, but not a male grievant, in actual cases. Thus, among both professional arbitrators and students, those who endorse an ideology of male dominance and male superiority may tend to act in ways that police women out of masculine occupations. We found a similarly, potentially paternalistic pattern of influence of implicit attitudes on real case decisions. Arbitrators with positive implicit attitudes toward women were more likely to find in favor of a female grievant, an implicit form of paternalism that, to our knowledge, has not previously been documented in a legal or other naturalistic decision context. Prior research showed that implicit attitudes toward women in positions of authority tend to be more negative than attitudes toward women, in general (Richeson & Ambady, 2001; Rudman & Kilianski, 2000). However, few studies have examined the association between implicit gender attitudes and decisions. Although it is the first to focus on actual legal decisions, our study joins the growing body of research documenting the impact of implicit attitudes regarding other professionals on decisions or behaviors they made while on the job, and extends this research by establishing evidence of an implicit gender bias in arbitration decision-making.

The Laboratory and the Field With respect to role-congruity theory and the potential effects of training and experience, the results of our laboratory experiment and analysis of real decisions were consistent. Students, but not trained arbitrators, decided cases in ways that were biased against women in stereotypically masculine contexts. Not so with individual-level attitudes. Results showed an association between ambivalent sexism and implicit attitudes toward women and arbitrators’ decisions in real cases, although these sources of gender bias did not predict the outcome of cases in the experimental study. This finding suggests that individual differences may be more influential in naturalistic decision contexts than in the laboratory. It also underscores the importance of assessing the impact of psychological factors in real-world contexts.

Limitations and Future Directions Despite many new insights afforded by these studies, they are characterized by several limitations. These limitations, in turn, give rise to questions that are worthy of future study. First, the arbitration fact patterns created for the experiment were carefully constructed to produce low agreement in the decisions among participants. Arbitration cases that reach a final arbiter are likely to be similarly ambiguous and difficult, but the findings of these studies may not generalize to other contexts in which the correct decision is more straightforward. Second, in Study 1 we found evidence of gender bias in students’ decisions that did not appear in the decisions of arbitrators. Given the known groups design, the experiment does not allow us to pinpoint the precise reason for this difference. Professional

training and/or expertise remains only a possible explanation for arbitrators’ ability to achieve overall gender parity in their decisions. Arbitrator age, gender, and variation in arbitration experience were controlled for, but the result is nevertheless confounded with other systematic differences in professional and life experience, as well as possible cohort and history effects, controls for which were not in the model. Additional research in which training and expertise are experimentally manipulated (see, e.g., Girvan, 2012) is necessary to rule out, or assess the effects of, these influences. Third, participants completed measures of implicit and explicit gender attitudes before deciding the arbitration cases. This is consistent with the causal direction of the underlying theory and ensures that any observed attitude-decision relationship is not attributable to the experience of the decision task itself (i.e., that significant effects are not due to the experimental manipulation changing participant attitudes). But this order raises the possibility that participants responses will be sensitized to potential demand characteristics created by completion of the measures, a possible alternate explanation for why the arbitrators in Study 1 demonstrated no promale bias. (In Study 2 measures were taken in most cases years after the arbitration decisions were made, eliminating the possibility of demand characteristics but presenting the alternate explanation that arbitrators’ gender attitudes might covary with their actual decisions because their current attitudes reflect their prior experiences deciding cases.) Several factors suggest that demand characteristics did not materially affect the results here. First, in studies involving assessment of gender attitudes where the order of the measures and manipulation is counterbalanced, order has been found not to influence responses (see, e.g., Wiener & Hurt, 2000). Second, we attempted to reduce the potential that participants might be influenced by the measures by administering Part 1 (individual difference measures) and Part 2 (the judgment task) of Study 1 several days apart. Third, both student and arbitrator participants completed the same attitude measures before deciding the cases, but only arbitrators did not evidence gender bias in their decisions. Finally, the absence of a main effect of grievant gender in the arbitrator’s decisions in Study 1 is consistent with the weight of the results of studies of actual arbitration cases, including the results of Study 2. That said, we cannot rule out the possibility that heightened sensitivity to pressure to remain neutral among arbitrators, rather than, in addition to, or as a result of their training and experience, as a possible explanation for the results of the lab study. Similarly, as the studies did not involve true random samples, it may be that these null effects and others (e.g., the failure of accountability to moderate gender bias even though it was associated with increases in integrative complexity) are attributable to self-selection effects and other variables not assessed directly or controlled for here. Future research should explore whether potential differences like these, especially those between experts and nonexperts, impact responses in laboratory research. Finally, post hoc analysis indicated that all of the statistical models were adequately powered to detect moderate effects except that in Study 1 testing the effects of gender attitudes on the arbitrator subsample in particular. Even so, because of a loss of data, statistical power was not as high as it might otherwise have been. It is thus possible that some of the effects which were nonsignificant or trending in these analyses (e.g., the effects of



grievant gender in the arbitrator sample in Study 1 and the interaction between Hostile Sexism and grievant gender in Study 2) might also have been significant without this loss. Accordingly, future research replicating these results in professional samples will be important to verifying the effects of training and expertise on the operation of gender bias. At a practical level, a better understanding of how arbitrators and other legal experts make decisions is crucial to improving training and reducing gender bias in this and other organizational contexts. Identifying the aspects of arbitrator experience that produce this reduction in bias is a worthy goal for future investigations.

References Abrams, D., Viki, G. T., Masser, B., & Bohner, G. (2003). Perceptions of stranger and acquaintance rape: The role of benevolent and hostile sexism in victim blame and rape proclivity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 84, 111–125. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .84.1.111 Agerström, J., & Rooth, D. O. (2011). The role of automatic obesity stereotypes in real hiring discrimination. Journal of Applied Psychology, 96, 790 – 805. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0021594 Amodio, D. M., & Devine, P. G. (2006). Stereotyping and evaluation in implicit race bias: Evidence for independent constructs and unique effects on behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 91, 652– 661. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.652 Arai, M. (2009). Cluster-robust standard errors using R. Retrieved from http://people.su.se/ma/clustering.pdf Bankston, E. W. (1976). Value differences between attorney and economist labor arbitrators. In J. Stern & B. Dennis (Eds.), Proceedings of the Twenty-Ninth Annual Winter Meetings, Industrial Relations Research Association (pp. 151–160). Madison, WI: IRRA. Bemmels, B. (1988a). The effect of grievants’ gender on arbitration decisions. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 41, 251–262. http://dx.doi .org/10.2307/2523635 Bemmels, B. (1988b). Gender effects in discharge arbitration. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 42, 63–76. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2523172 Biernat, M., & Malin, M. H. (2008). Political ideology and labor arbitrators’ decision making in work-family conflict cases. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 34, 888 – 899. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/ 0146167208316689 Blair, I. V., Dasgupta, N., & Glaser, J. (2015). Implicit attitudes. In E. Borgida & J. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, attitudes and social cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/14341-021 Bluemke, M., & Friese, M. (2008). Reliability and validity of the SingleTarget IAT (ST-IAT): Assessing automatic affect toward multiple attitude objects. European Journal of Social Psychology, 38, 977–997. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ejsp.487 Borgida, E., & Girvan, E. J. (2015). Social cognition in law. In E. Borgida & J. Bargh (Eds.), APA handbook of personality and social psychology, attitudes and social cognition. Washington, DC: APA Books. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/14341-024 Bornstein, B. H. (1999). The ecological validity of jury simulations: Is the jury still out? Law and Human Behavior, 23, 75–91. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1023/A:1022326807441 Bowen, C. C., Swim, J. K., & Jacobs, R. R. (2000). Evaluating gender biases on actual job performance of real people: A meta-analysis. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 30, 2194 –2215. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1111/j.1559-1816.2000.tb02432.x Cameron, A. C., & Miller, D. L. (2010). Robust inference with clustered

535

data. In A. Ullah & D. E. Giles (Eds.), Handbook of empirical economics and finance (pp. 1–28). Boca Raton, FL: Chapman & Hall/CRC. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1201/b10440-2 Cikara, M., & Fiske, S. T. (2009). Warmth, competence, and ambivalent sexism: Vertical assault and collateral damage. In M. Barreto, M. K. Ryan, & M. T. Schmitt (Eds.), The glass ceiling in the 21st century: Understanding barriers to gender equality. Washington, DC: American Psychological Association. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/11863-004 Cikara, M., Lee, T. L., Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (2009). Ambivalent sexism at home and at work: How attitudes toward women in relationships foster exclusion in the public sphere. In J. T. Jost, A. C. Kay, & H. Thorisdottir (Eds.), Social and psychological bases of ideology and system justification. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. http://dx .doi.org/10.1093/acprof:oso/9780195320916.003.018 Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, 155–159. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909.112.1.155 Crawley, M. J. (2013). The R book (2nd ed.). Chichester, UK: Wiley. Davison, H. K., & Burke, M. J. (2000). Sex discrimination in simulated employment contexts: A meta-analytic investigation. Journal of Vocational Behavior, 56, 225–248. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jvbe.1999.1711 Dobbin, F., Schrage, D., & Kalev, A. (2009). Someone to watch over me: Coupling, decoupling, and unintended consequences in corporate equal opportunity. Working Paper, Department of Sociology, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA. Dovidio, J. F., & Gaertner, S. L. (2000). Aversive racism and selection decisions: 1989 and 1999. Psychological Science, 11, 315–319. http:// dx.doi.org/10.1111/1467-9280.00262 Drahozal, C. R. (2014). FAA preemption after Concepcion. Berkeley Journal of Employment and Labor Law, 35, 153–174. Eagly, A. H., & Karau, S. J. (2002). Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychological Review, 109, 573–598. Fazio, R. H., & Olson, M. A. (2003). Implicit measures in social cognition. research: Their meaning and use. Annual Review of Psychology, 54, 297–327. http://dx.doi.org/10.1146/annurev.psych.54.101601.145225 Fiske, S. T., & Glick, P. (1995). Ambivalence and stereotypes cause sexual harassment: A theory with implications for organizational change. Journal of Social Issues, 51, 97–115. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.1540-4560 .1995.tb01311.x Fiske, S. T., & Taylor, S. E. (2007). Social cognition: From brains to culture. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill. Ford, T. E., Gambino, F., Lee, H., Mayo, E., & Ferguson, M. A. (2004). The role of accountability in suppressing managers’ preinterview bias against African-American sales job applicants. Journal of Personal Selling & Sales Management, 24, 113–124. Foschi, M. (1996). Double standards in the evaluation of men and women. Social Psychology Quarterly, 59, 237–254. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/ 2787021 Girvan, E. J. (2012). Habits of meaning: When legal education and other professional training attenuate bias in social judgments (Doctoral dissertation). University of Minnesota Digital Conservancy: http://purl .umn.edu/128753 Glick, P., Diebold, J., Bailey-Werner, B., & Zhu, L. (1997). The two faces of Adam: Ambivalent sexism and polarized attitudes toward women. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 23, 1323–1334. http://dx .doi.org/10.1177/01461672972312009 Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (1996). The ambivalent sexism inventory: Differentiating hostile and benevolent sexism. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 70, 491–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514 .70.3.491 Glick, P., & Fiske, S. T. (2007). Sex discrimination: The psychological approach. In F. J. Crosby, M. S. Stockdale, & S. A. Ropp (Eds.), Sex discrimination in the workplace. Malden, MA: Blackwell. Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: Consequences of


536


dehumanizing Black children. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 106, 526 –545. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0035663 Green, A. R., Carney, D. R., Pallin, D. J., Ngo, L. H., Raymond, K. L., Iezzoni, L. I., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). Implicit bias among physicians and its prediction of thrombolysis decisions for black and white patients. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 22, 1231–1238. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1007/s11606-007-0258-5 Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94, 945–967. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2307/20439056 Greenwald, A. G., Poehlman, T. A., Uhlmann, E. L., & Banaji, M. R. (2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17– 41. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0015575 Haider, H., & Frensch, P. A. (1996). The role of information reduction in skill acquisition. Cognitive Psychology, 30, 304 –337. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1006/cogp.1996.0009 Heilman, M. E. (2012). Gender stereotypes and workplace bias. Research in Organizational Behavior, 32, 113–135. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j .riob.2012.11.003 Kutner, M. H., Nachtsheim, C. J., Neter, J., & Li, W. (2005). Applied linear statistical models. New York, NY: McGraw-Hill International. Landy, F. J. (2008). Stereotypes, bias, and personnel decisions: Strange and stranger. Industrial and Organizational Psychology: Perspectives on Science and Practice, 1, 379 –392. http://dx.doi.org/10.1111/j.17549434.2008.00071.x Lerner, J. S., & Tetlock, P. E. (1999). Accounting for the effects of accountability. Psychological Bulletin, 125, 255–275. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1037/0033-2909.125.2.255 Levinson, J. D., & Smith, R. J. (Eds.). (2012). Implicit racial bias across the law. New York, NY: Cambridge University Press. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1017/CBO9780511820595 Levinson, J. D., & Young, D. (2010). Implicit gender bias in the legal profession: An empirical study. Duke Journal of Gender Law & Policy, 18, 1. Lyness, K. S., & Heilman, M. E. (2006). When fit is fundamental: Performance evaluations and promotions of upper-level female and male managers. Journal of Applied Psychology, 91, 777–785. http://dx.doi .org/10.1037/0021-9010.91.4.777 Masser, B. M., & Abrams, D. (2004). Reinforcing the glass ceiling: The consequences of hostile sexism for female managerial candidates. Sex Roles, 51, 609 – 615. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11199-004-5470-8 McKelvey, R. D., & Zavoina, W. (1975). A statistical model for the analysis of ordinal level dependent variables. The Journal of Mathematical Sociology, 4, 103–120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/0022250X.1975 .9989847 Minnesota State Courts. (2014). Minnesota Statewide ADR-Rule 114 Neutrals Roster. State Court Administrator’s Office. Retrieved from http://www.mncourts.gov/apps/adr/adr_query.asp Mitchell, G. (2012). Revisiting truth or triviality: The external validity of research in the psychological laboratory. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 7, 109 –117. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1745691611432343 O’Brien, R. M. (2007). A caution regarding rules of thumb for variance inflation factors. Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, 41, 673– 690. http://dx.doi.org/10.1007/s11135-006-9018-6 Olian, J. D., Schwab, D. P., & Haberfeld, Y. (1988). The impact of applicant gender compared to qualifications on hiring recommendations: A metaanalysis of experimental studies. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 41, 180 –195. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ 0749-5978(88)90025-8 Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105, 171–192. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/a0032734

Payne, B. K., Krosnick, J. A., Pasek, J., Lelkes, Y., Akhtar, O., & Tompson, T. (2010). Implicit and explicit prejudice in the 2008 American presidential election. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 46, 367–374. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2009.11.001 Pendry, L. F., & Macrae, C. N. (1994). Stereotypes and mental life: The case of the motivated but thwarted tactician. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 30, 303–325. http://dx.doi.org/10.1006/jesp.1994 .1015 Ponak, A. (1987). Discharge arbitration and reinstatement in the province of Alberta. The Arbitration Journal, 42, 40 – 46. Rachlinski, J. J., Johnson, S. L., Wistrich, A. J., & Guthrie, C. (2008). Does unconscious racial bias affect trial judges. The Notre Dame Law Review, 84, 1195. Richeson, J. A., & Ambady, N. (2001). Who’s in charge? Effects of situational roles on automatic gender bias. Sex Roles, 44, 493–512. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A:1012242123824 Rooth, D. (2010). Automatic associations and discrimination in hiring: Real world evidence. Labour Economics, 17, 523–534. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1016/j.labeco.2009.04.005 Rudman, L. A., & Ashmore, R. D. (2007). Discrimination and the implicit association test. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations, 10, 359 –372. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/1368430207078696 Rudman, L. A., Glick, P., & Phelan, J. E. (2007). From the laboratory to the bench: Gender stereotyping research in the courtroom. In E. Borgida & S. T. Fiske (Eds.), Beyond common sense: Psychological science in the courtroom. Malden, MA: Blackwell. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470696422.ch5 Rudman, L. A., & Goodwin, S. A. (2004). Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: Why do women like women more than men like men? Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 87, 494 –509. http://dx .doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.87.4.494 Rudman, L. A., & Kilianski, S. E. (2000). Implicit and explicit attitudes toward female authority. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 26, 1315–1328. http://dx.doi.org/10.1177/0146167200263001 Sabin, J. A., & Greenwald, A. G. (2012). The influence of implicit bias on treatment recommendations for 4 common pediatric conditions: Pain, urinary tract infection, attention deficit hyperactivity disorder, and asthma. American Journal of Public Health, 102, 988 –995. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.2105/AJPH.2011.300621 Sakalli-Ugurlu, N., & Beydogan, B. (2002). Turkish college students’ attitudes toward women managers: The effects of patriarchy, sexism, and gender differences. The Journal of Psychology: Interdisciplinary and Applied, 136, 647– 656. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/00223980209604825 Simpson, P. A., & Martocchio, J. J. (1997). The influence of work history factors on arbitration outcomes. Industrial & Labor Relations Review, 50, 252. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/2525085 Souchon, N., Cabagno, G., Traclet, A., Dosseville, F., Livingstone, A., Jones, M., & Maio, G. (2010). Referees’ decision-making and player gender: The moderating role of the type of situation. Journal of Applied Sport Psychology, 22, 1–16. http://dx.doi.org/10.1080/ 10413200903250476 Sterne, J. A., White, I. R., Carlin, J. B., Spratt, M., Royston, P., Kenward, M. G., . . . Carpenter, J. R. (2009). Multiple imputation for missing data in epidemiological and clinical research: Potential and pitfalls. British Medical Journal (Clinical Research Ed.), 338, b2393. http://dx.doi.org/ 10.1136/bmj.b2393 Sternlight, J. R. (2005). Creeping mandatory arbitration: Is it just? Stanford Law Review, 57, 1631–1675. Suedfeld, P. (2005). Welcome to the Electronic Complexity Workshop. Retrieved from http://www2.psych.ubc.ca/~psuedfeld/Workshop.html Swim, J., Borgida, E., Maruyama, G., & Myers, D. G. (1989). Joan McKay versus John McKay: Do gender stereotypes bias evaluations? Psychological Bulletin, 105, 409 – 429. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0033-2909 .105.3.409


GENERALIZABILITY OF GENDER BIAS Tetlock, P. E., & Lerner, J. S. (1999). The social contingency model: Identifying empirical and normative boundary conditions on the errorand-bias portrait of human nature. In S. Chaiken & Y. Trope (Eds.), Dual-process theories in social psychology (pp. 571–585). New York, NY: Gilford Press. Tetlock, P. E., & Mitchell, G. (2009). Implicit bias and accountability systems: What must organizations do to prevent discrimination? Research in Organizational Behavior, 29, 3–38. http://dx.doi.org/10.1016/ j.riob.2009.10.002 Tetlock, P. E., Skitka, L., & Boettger, R. (1989). Social and cognitive strategies for coping with accountability: Conformity, complexity, and bolstering. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 57, 632– 640. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.57.4.632 Thomson Reuters. (2012). Westlaw classic. New York, NY. Retrieved from http://www.westlaw.com Tosi, H. L., & Einbender, S. W. (1985). The effects of the type and amount of information in sex discrimination research: A meta-analysis. Academy of Management Journal, 28, 712–723. http://dx.doi.org/10.2307/256127 U.S. Department of Labor, Bureau of Labor Statistics. (2012). Household data annual averages: 18. Employed persons by detailed industry, sex, race, and Hispanic or Latino ethnicity. Retrieved from http://www.bls .gov/cps/cpsaat18.pdf Van den Bergh, L., Denessen, E., Hornstra, L., Voeten, M., & Holland, R. W. (2010). The implicit prejudiced attitudes of teachers relations to teacher expectations and the ethnic achievement gap. American Educational Research Journal, 47, 497–527. http://dx.doi.org/10.3102/ 0002831209353594 Viki, G. T., & Abrams, D. (2002). But she was unfaithful: Benevolent sexism and reactions to rape victims who violate traditional gender role

537

expectations. Sex Roles, 47, 289 –293. http://dx.doi.org/10.1023/A: 1021342912248 Viki, G. T., Massey, K., & Masser, B. (2005). When chivalry backfires: Benevolent sexism and attitudes toward Myra Hindley. Legal and Criminological Psychology, 10, 109 –120. http://dx.doi.org/10.1348/ 135532504X15277 Weiss, D. J., & Shanteau, J. (2003). Empirical assessment of expertise. Human Factors, 45, 104 –116. http://dx.doi.org/10.1518/hfes.45.1.104 .27233 Wiener, R. L., & Hurt, L. E. (2000). How do people evaluate social sexual conduct at work? A psycholegal model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 85, 75– 85. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.85.1.75 Wiener, R. L., Hurt, L., Russell, B., Mannen, K., & Gasper, C. (1997). Perceptions of sexual harassment: The effects of gender, legal standard, and ambivalent sexism. Law and Human Behavior, 21, 71–93. http://dx .doi.org/10.1023/A:1024818110678 Wood, W., & Eagly, A. H. (2010). Gender. In S. T. Fiske, D. T. Gilbert, & G. Lindzey (Eds.), Handbook of social psychology (5th ed., Vol. 1, pp. 629 – 667). New York, NY: Wiley. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/ 9780470561119.socpsy001017 Yzerbyt, V. Y., Schadron, G., Leyens, J. P., & Rocher, S. (1994). Social judgeability: The impact of meta-informational cues on the use of stereotypes. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 66, 48 –55. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.66.1.48

Received August 4, 2014 Revision received April 21, 2015 Accepted April 25, 2015 䡲

The Effects of Obesity-Related Health Messages on Explicit and Implicit Weight Bias.

Explicit and implicit assessment of gender roles.

Age and time effects on implicit and explicit learning.

Dissociation of the acute effects of alcohol on implicit and explicit memory processes.

On Feeling Torn About One's Sexuality: The Effects of Explicit-Implicit Sexual Orientation Ambivalence.

Explicit versus implicit solvation effects on the first hyperpolarizability of an organic biphotochrome.

Drinkers' memory bias for alcohol picture cues in explicit and implicit memory tasks.

Implicit and explicit weight bias in a national sample of 4,732 medical students: the medical student CHANGES study.

Implicit and explicit memory bias for threat in post-traumatic stress disorder.

Physicians and implicit bias.

Effects of context on implicit and explicit lexical knowledge: an event-related potential study.

Gender bias on the Thematic Apperception Test.

Implicit and explicit timing in oculomotor control.

The effects of eliciting implicit versus explicit social support among youths susceptible for late-onset smoking.

Auditory attentional capture: implicit and explicit approaches.

spiritual self-representations.

Implicit and explicit contributions to statistical learning.

Implicit and explicit memory in survivors of chronic interpersonal violence.

Metacognitive skills in diagnostic reasoning: making the implicit explicit.

The Effect of Implicit-Explicit Followership Congruence on Benevolent Leadership: Evidence from Chinese Family Firms.

Testing the generalizability of indirect range restriction corrections.

Explicit- and implicit-solvent simulations of micellization in surfactant solutions.

Managing Relationship Decay : Network, Gender, and Contextual Effects.

Effects of Reliability and Global Context on Explicit and Implicit Measures of Sensed Hand Position in Cursor-Control Tasks.