To begin a tour of research on implicit bias, the construct must be defined conceptually and operationally, and Section 1 does just that. As we shall see, the accumulated literature has been characterized by definitional divergences that merit investigation and resolution.

In this section, we reassess the value of explicit prejudice measures. P.J. Henry starts this discussion by reviewing critiques of implicit prejudice measures and points to the overwhelming evidence of the power of explicit measures to predict important outcomes. To date, implicit measures have not yet been shown to be similarly capable. Henry explains how the “implicit revolution” was founded on the claim that explicit measures are useless, yet this is clearly not so.

Despite twenty years of research, we have not yet reached a point of consensus about what might be considered the most important issue in the study of implicit bias: when and how strongly does it shape cognition and behavior? This section of this handbook reviews some of the relevant literature.

Recent decades have seen a series of attempts to further develop measures of implicit bias. Some observers have suggested drawing on lessons learned in the literature on optimal measurement of explicit bias to enhance implicit bias measures. Suggestions have also been made about how to improve meta-analyses of studies quantifying the strength of the link between implicit attitudes and behavior. For example, outdated statistical methods used in many meta-analyses of implicit bias may have led to incorrect inferences about the average effect sizes and can be avoided using newer techniques. Further improvement has been suggested to more effectively take into account omitted variables that may create spurious associations of implicit attitudes and behavior.

During the past century, racial attitudes in America have been radically transformed. One hundred years ago, this was a country of explicit racism, where separation of the races and discrimination against African Americans in particular were normative, formalized in laws, in the widespread practices of businesses and in the treatment of individuals by individuals every day. The civil rights movement of the 1960s brought about a landmark shift, eliciting widespread condemnation of racism, and setting the stage for the country’s embracing of multiculturalism and implementing policies in many arenas of life to level the playing field and compensate for past discrimination. These changes in public practices were accompanied by a gradual transformation of public opinion in the United States: surveys documented a steady growth of endorsement of racial equality and a decline in explicitly stated racial prejudice. More and more Americans endorsed principles of racial equality and expressed support for various policies preventing discrimination.

In contrast to most scientific research that goes largely unrecognized by the general public, the concept of implicit bias broke through into the public sphere. This success comes with the challenge that academic nuances and clearly stated limitations often get lost in translation. Moreover, given ongoing scientific debates about what implicit bias is and how to measure it, perhaps the phenomenon got out into public consciousness before scientists have fully understood it.

In the study of racial prejudice in America, symbolic racism (and its close cousin, racial resentment) has been especially successful at predicting evaluations of race-related policies, evaluations of African-American politicians, voting behavior, and much more. This paper tests a proposal made by the theory of symbolic racism about the origin of racial prejudice: that symbolic racism is a blend of anti-Black affect and the perception that Black people violate traditional American values. Analyzed using a new approach that more fully meets the conceptualization of value-violation beliefs than in past research, data from college students and from a representative national sample of Americans disconfirmed the blend hypothesis. Instead, the data are consistent with a mediational chain: beliefs that Black people violate traditional values mediate the effect of anti-Black affect on responses to symbolic racism items, which, in turn, shape people’s attitudes toward racial policies. Thus, the previously suggested “blending” of proposed ingredients appears to be mediational rather than interactive or synergistic. These findings cast new light on the origins of symbolic racism.