Carlee Beth Hawkins

Bio: Carlee Beth Hawkins is an academic researcher from University of Virginia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Implicit attitude & Implicit-association test. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 20 publications receiving 1485 citations. Previous affiliations of Carlee Beth Hawkins include University of Illinois at Springfield & University of Chicago.

Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions

Abstract: Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted seventeen interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in four studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of seventeen interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared to Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other nine interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others’ perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics.

Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions.

Abstract: Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted 17 interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in 4 studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of 17 interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared with Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other 9 interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others' perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics.

Belief in a just God (and a just society): A system justification perspective on religious ideology.

Abstract: Theoretical approaches that treat religiosity as an evolutionary byproduct of cognitive mechanisms to detect agency may help to explain the prevalence of superstitious thinking, but they say little about the social-motivational (or ideological) functions of religious beliefs or the specific contents of religious doctrines. To address these omissions, we develop the thesis that religion provides an ideological justification for the existing social order, so that prevailing institutions and arrangements are perceived as legitimate and just and therefore worth obeying and preserving. We summarize empirical evidence revealing that: (a) religiosity is associated with the same set of epistemic, existential, and relational needs that motivate system justification; (b) religiosity is associated with the endorsement of the belief in a just world, Protestant Work Ethic, fair market ideology, opposition to equality, right-wing authoritarianism, political conservatism, and other system-justifying belief systems; and (c) religious ideology tends to serve the palliative function of making people happier or more satisfied with the way things are. Although most major religious texts and movements contain progressive as well as conservative elements, belief in God is more often than not system-justifying in terms of its motivational antecedents, manifestations, and consequences. Belief in a Just God 2 The Lord feeds some of His prisoners better than others. It could be said of Him that He is not a just god but an indifferent god. That He is not to be trusted to reward the righteous and punish the unscrupulous. That He maketh the poor poorer but is otherwise undependable. It could be said of Him that it is His school of the germane that produced the Congressional Record. That it is His vision of justice that gave us cost accounting. -Reed Whittemore (1990/2000, p. 13) The recent trend in scientific approaches to religion has been to understand belief in God (or gods) as an evolutionary “accident,” that is, a byproduct of psychological adaptations that enabled our species to infer agency and other hidden causes of observable outcomes in the social and physical world (e.g., Atran & Norenzayan, 2004; Boyer, 2001; Dawkins, 2006; Dennett, 2006). The idea is that—as Paul Bloom (2005) put it—our cognitive apparatus evolved to “see purpose, intention, design, even when it is not there.” Such approaches may indeed help to explain the prevalence of religious and superstitious forms of thinking in general, but they say little about the social-motivational functions of religion or, relatedly, the specific contents that religious beliefs and doctrines are likely to include. Adopting a system justification perspective, we propose that an important but underappreciated function of religion is to provide ideological justification for the existing social order and to establish the perception that prevailing institutions and arrangements are legitimate and just and therefore worth obeying and preserving (Jost, Banaji, & Nosek, 2004; Jost & Van der Toorn, 2012). In other words, we consider the possibility that religious belief systems are (more often than not) system-justifying in terms of their contents, consequences, and underlying motivational structure. Let us begin with the problem of theodicy, which poses a challenge to religious faith—or at least to belief in a deity who is morally irreproachable (Leibniz, 1709/1952; see also Larrimore, 2001): If God is all-knowing and all-powerful, how do we explain the existence and Belief in a Just God 3 prevalence of evil, suffering, and injustice in the world? As Max Weber (1922/1963) observed in The Sociology of Religion, every religion has offered some solution to (or, in a few cases, clever evasions of) the problem of theodicy. One of the most common theological solutions concerns the afterlife, a time and place in which earthly scores are settled, scoundrels are punished retributively, and the virtuous are compensated—perhaps infinitely so. Furthermore, as the psychologist Melvin Lerner (1980) pointed out: [T]here are strong forces in our culture which convey the belief that this is a “just world.” The Western religions stress the relation between sin, doing harm to others, and suffering. Although the ultimate accounting is expected to take place in the next world and for eternity, there are strong themes running through the Judeo-Christian tradition which link signs of one’s fate on earth with virtue and a state of grace—Job, in the Bible, suffered long and grievously, but he was more than compensated, not in heaven but on this earth. The Old Testament contains many examples which illustrate that “righteous will triumph and the wicked be punished.” The Christian Reformation created the basis for a world view, the “Protestant Ethic,” which permeates our culture . . . From this perspective, success, financial and otherwise, is a sign of salvation, and a direct result of the Christian virtues of diligence and self-sacrifice. (p. 13) Lerner suggests that religious ideology helps adherents to satisfy their desire to believe in a “just world” in which people “deserve what they get and get what they deserve” (see also Furnham & Brown, 1992; Rubin & Peplau, 1975). But religious belief systems do much more than validate intuitions about justice and conceptions of God as benevolent. As Weber (1922/1963) noted, they also uphold the current social order by suggesting that justice is (or will be) served. The Hindu concept of karma, for instance, and the related doctrine of the transmigration of souls (i.e., reincarnation) commit individuals to believing that they deserve their present status in society and also that, if they live in a manner that is consistent with religious prescriptions, they will be rewarded in their next lives. Thus, belief in the doctrine of the transmigration of souls (i.e., reincarnation) helps to explain why “it is precisely the lowest classes, who would naturally be most desirous of Belief in a Just God 4 improving their status in subsequent incarnations, that cling most steadfastly to their caste obligations, never thinking of toppling the caste system through social revolutions or reforms” (Weber, 1922/1963, p. 43). The Judeo-Christian tradition, too, is replete with elaborate ideological justifications that provide moral and intellectual support for the notion that the existing social order is legitimate, just, and should be defended and maintained. The New Testament explicitly states, for instance, that political authorities are legitimate and should be obeyed: 1. Everyone must submit himself to the governing authorities, for there is no authority except that which God has established. The authorities that exist have been established by God. 2. Consequently, he who rebels against the authority is rebelling against what God has instituted, and those who do so will bring judgment on themselves. 3. For rulers hold no terror for those who do right, but for those who do wrong. Do you want to be free from fear of the one in authority? Then do what is right and he will commend you. 4. For he is God’s servant to do you good. But if you do wrong, be afraid, for he does not bear the sword for nothing. He is God’s servant, an agent of wrath to bring punishment on the wrongdoer. 5. Therefore, it is necessary to submit to the authorities, not only because of possible punishment but also because of conscience. 6. This is also why you pay taxes, for the authorities are God’s servants, who give their full time to governing. (Romans 13) Religious texts also condone many forms of social inequality, including sexism: Wives, submit yourselves unto your own husbands, as unto the Lord. For the husband is the head of the wife, even as Christ is the head of the church . . . as the church is subject unto Christ, so let the wives be to their husbands in everything. (Ephesians 5:22-24) Slavery is regarded as a justifiable institution in the Old and New Testaments, as the following passages show: Belief in a Just God 5 As for your male and female slaves whom you may have: you may buy male and female slaves from among the nations that are around you. You may also buy from among the strangers who sojourn with you and their clans that are with you, who have been born in your land, and they may be your property. You may bequeath them to your sons after you to inherit as a possession forever. You may make slaves of them, but over your brothers the people of Israel you shall not rule, one over another ruthlessly. (Leviticus 25:44-46) Masters, treat your slaves justly and fairly, knowing that you also have a Master in heaven. (Colossians 4:1) In religious teachings, gender disparities and traditional divisions of labor within families are often accepted and imbued with moral and even spiritual significance. This is by no means confined to Christianity. As Weber (1922/1963) observed, “Women are completely excluded from the official Chinese cults as well as from those of the Romans and Brahmins; nor is the religion of the Buddhist intellectuals feministic” (p. 105). During the Medieval Crusades, the tenets of Christian ideology were used to justify the inquisition, torture, and execution of non-believers. They were also wielded in defense of racial hierarchies and the institution of slavery (e.g., Faust, 1981; Fredrickson, 2002). Religion continues to function as a major justification for slavery in those parts of the world where it is still practiced, such as Mauritania. An escaped Haratin slave named Moctar Teyeb noted that, “Slavery is a state of mind, and most Haratin believe that the slavery system is part of Allah’s command . . . To be against slavery is to be against religion” (Finnegan, 2000, p. 52). The point of recounting these cultural and historical facts is simply to highlight the observation that among the astonishingly variegated doctrines of religious belief, certain themes repeatedly emerge, and th

Do Physicians' Implicit Views of African Americans Affect Clinical Decision Making?

Abstract: Background: Total knee replacement (TKR) is a cost-effective treatment option for severe osteoarthritis (OA). While prevalence of OA is higher among blacks than whites, TKR rates are lower among blacks. Physicians9 implicit preferences might explain racial differences in TKR recommendation. The objective of this study was to evaluate whether the magnitude of implicit racial bias predicts physician recommendation of TKR for black and white patients with OA and to assess the effectiveness of a web-based instrument as an intervention to decrease the effect of implicit racial bias on physician recommendation of TKR. Methods: In this web-based study, 543 family and internal medicine physicians were given a scenario describing either a black or white patient with severe OA refractory to medical treatment. Questionnaires evaluating the likelihood of recommending TKR, perceived medical cooperativeness, and measures of implicit racial bias were administered. The main outcome measures included TKR recommendation, implicit racial preference, and medical cooperativeness stereotypes measured with implicit association tests. Results: Subjects displayed a strong implicit preference for whites over blacks (P .06). Although participants were more likely to recommend TKR when completing the implicit association test before the decision, patient race was not significant in the association (P = .960). Conclusions: Physicians possessed explicit and implicit racial biases, but those biases did not predict treatment recommendations. Clinicians9 biases about the medical cooperativeness of blacks versus whites, however, may have influenced treatment decisions.

The theory of planned behaviour: reactions and reflections

Abstract: The seven articles in this issue, and the accompanying meta-analysis in Health Psychology Review [McEachan, R.R.C., Conner, M., Taylor, N., & Lawton, R.J. (2011). Prospective prediction of health-related behaviors with the theory of planned behavior: A meta-analysis. Health Psychology Review, 5, 97–144], illustrate the wide application of the theory of planned behaviour [Ajzen, I. (1991). The theory of planned behavior. Organizational Behavior and Human Decision Processes, 50, 179–211] in the health domain. In this editorial, Ajzen reflects on some of the issues raised by the different authors. Among the topics addressed are the nature of intentions and the limits of predictive validity; rationality, affect and emotions; past behaviour and habit; the prototype/willingness model; and the role of such background factors as the big five personality traits and social comparison tendency.

The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion

Abstract: The Righteous Mind: Why Good People Are Divided by Politics and Religion Jonathan Haidt Pantheon Books, 2012One has likely heard that, for the sake of decorum, religion and politics should never be topics of conversation with strangers. Even amongst friends or even when it is known that others hold opposing political or religious views, why is it that discussion of religion and politics leads to visceral-level acrimony and that one's views are right and the other's views are wrong? Professor Jonathan Haidt of the University of Virginia examines the psychological basis of our "righteous minds" without resorting to any of the pejorative labeling that is usually found in a book on politics and religion and eschews a purely comparative approach. Haidt proposes the intriguing hypothesis that our visceral reaction to competing ideologies is a subconscious, rather than leaned, reaction that evolved over human evolution to innate senses of suffering, fairness, cheating and disease, and that moral foundations facilitated intra-group cooperation which in turn conferred survival advantages over other groups. These psychological mechanisms are genetic in origin and not necessarily amenable to rational and voluntary control - this is in part the reason debating one's ideological opposite more often leads to frustration rather than understanding. Haidt also suggests that morality is based on six "psychological systems" or foundations (Moral Foundations Theory), similar to the hypothesized adaptive mental modules which evolved to solve specific problems of survival in the human ancestral environment.While decorum pleads for more civility, it would be better, as Haidt suggests, dragging the issue of partisan politics out into the open in order to understand it and work around our righteous minds. Haidt suggests a few methods by which the level of rhetoric in American politics can be reduced, such that the political parties can at least be cordial as they have been in the past and work together to solve truly pressing social problems.There are a number of fascinating points raised in the current book, but most intriguing is the one that morality, ideology and religion are products of group selection, as adaptations that increased individual cooperation and suppressed selfishness, thereby increasing individual loyalty to the group. That morality, political ideology and religion buttress group survival is probably highly intuitive. However, given the contemporary focus on the individual as the source of adaptations, to the exclusion of all else, to suggest that adaptations such as religion and political ideology arose to enhance survival of groups is heresy or, as Haidt recounts, "foolishness". While previous rejection of group selection itself was due in part to conceptual issues, one could also point out the prevailing individualist social sentiment, "selfish gene" mentality and unrelenting hostility against those who supported the view that group selection did indeed apply to humans and not just to insects. Haidt gives a lengthy and convincing defense of group selection, his main point being that humans can pursue self- interest at the same time they promote self-interest within a group setting - humans are "90 percent chimp, 10 percent bees". One can readily observe in the news and entertainment mediate that religion is a frequent target of derision, even within the scientific community - Haidt points to the strident contempt that the "New Atheists" hold for religion. They claim that religion is purely a by-product of an adaptive psychological trait and as a mere by-product religion serves no useful purpose. However, the religious "sense" has somehow managed to persist in the human psyche. One explanation by the New Atheists of how religion propagated itself is that it is a "parasite" or "virus" which latches onto a susceptible host and induces the host to "infect" others. As a "virus" or "parasite" that is merely interested in its own survival, religion causes people to perform behaviors that do not increase their own reproductive fitness and may even be detrimental to survival, but religion spreads nonetheless. …

Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review

Abstract: Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2013. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified papers based on precise content and quality criteria. The references of eligible papers were examined to identify further eligible studies. Forty two articles were identified as eligible. Seventeen used an implicit measure (Implicit Association Test in fifteen and subliminal priming in two), to test the biases of healthcare professionals. Twenty five articles employed a between-subjects design, using vignettes to examine the influence of patient characteristics on healthcare professionals’ attitudes, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. The second method was included although it does not isolate implicit attitudes because it is recognised by psychologists who specialise in implicit cognition as a way of detecting the possible presence of implicit bias. Twenty seven studies examined racial/ethnic biases; ten other biases were investigated, including gender, age and weight. Thirty five articles found evidence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all the studies that investigated correlations found a significant positive relationship between level of implicit bias and lower quality of care. The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population. The interactions between multiple patient characteristics and between healthcare professional and patient characteristics reveal the complexity of the phenomenon of implicit bias and its influence on clinician-patient interaction. The most convincing studies from our review are those that combine the IAT and a method measuring the quality of treatment in the actual world. Correlational evidence indicates that biases are likely to influence diagnosis and treatment decisions and levels of care in some circumstances and need to be further investigated. Our review also indicates that there may sometimes be a gap between the norm of impartiality and the extent to which it is embraced by healthcare professionals for some of the tested characteristics. Our findings highlight the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare. More research in actual care settings and a greater homogeneity in methods employed to test implicit biases in healthcare is needed.

The preregistration revolution.

Abstract: Progress in science relies in part on generating hypotheses with existing observations and testing hypotheses with new observations. This distinction between postdiction and prediction is appreciated conceptually but is not respected in practice. Mistaking generation of postdictions with testing of predictions reduces the credibility of research findings. However, ordinary biases in human reasoning, such as hindsight bias, make it hard to avoid this mistake. An effective solution is to define the research questions and analysis plan before observing the research outcomes—a process called preregistration. Preregistration distinguishes analyses and outcomes that result from predictions from those that result from postdictions. A variety of practical strategies are available to make the best possible use of preregistration in circumstances that fall short of the ideal application, such as when the data are preexisting. Services are now available for preregistration across all disciplines, facilitating a rapid increase in the practice. Widespread adoption of preregistration will increase distinctiveness between hypothesis generation and hypothesis testing and will improve the credibility of research findings.