Implicit prejudice is the preference for one racial group over another. Implicit prejudice occurs when a certain group of people result in considerably greater facilitation by being more pessimistic than showing being more optimistic in character while the other group facilitates optimistic more than pessimistic stereotypic characteristics. This implies that implicit prejudices occur even in persons who openly rebuff a typecast and find facts of their individual propensity to be persistent. Wittenbrink, Judd & Park (1997) noted that the scale of implied intolerance result correlates reliably with that found on unequivocal ethnic outlook measures, demonstrating that people’s impulsive stereotypic relations are rely on with their proscribed reactions. Implicit prejudice results from unprompted, natural foundation of understanding contents that is motivated by indications in the present situation rather as compared by an active reminiscence seek out (Wittenbrink, Judd & Park, 1997).
According to Wittenbrink, Judd & Park (1997), implicit prejudice helps to establish whether negative attributes are more strongly associated than positive attributes at an implicit level for the African American relative to White target group. It assesses automatically activated associations for example white with good vs. black with bad that operate largely without intention or outside of awareness. In many instances, implicit prejudice is revealed only on the attributes that are stereotypic of the group primed. Wittenbrink, Judd & Park (1997) noted that implicit prejudice relies significantly on the typecast of an item. This is as due to the fact that connections deteriorate when one shifts from the implied discrimination compared to the universal chauvinism contrast which entails the distinction on the items that are not stereotypic of a prepared cluster.
The phenomenon to which "Implicit Prejudice" Is Applied
The phenomenon in whichimplicit prejudice is applied when stereotypes become activated unintentionally and outside of awareness both presences of the relevant group features (Chen & Bargh, 1997). Implicit prejudice plays a major role when the group stereotype is the source of expectancies about individual members of that group. In this case Chen & Bargh (1997) indicated that the perceiver then behaves towards the target as though these beliefs were true. This phenomenon is applied when investigating the influence of racial stereotypes on behavioral confirmation. For example Chen & Bargh (1997) says that Caucasian undergraduates interviewed both Caucasian and African American confederates as job applicants. The results indicated that when the confederate was African American, the Caucasian participants allowed the interview to last a shorter amount of time, treated the interviewee with less urgency and displayed a higher rate of speech errors (Chen & Bargh, 1997). This is a good application of implicit prejudice.
Another phenomenon in which implicit prejudice is applied is in category based responses. Wheeler & Fiske (2005) noted that “implicit prejudice is applied when people instantly categorize other people on the basis of social distinctions such as race, gender and age” (p. 56). The use of implicit prejudice in social categorization saves time and mental energy. It should however be noted that quick heuristics to assess a person can harm both the perceiver and the target person (Wheeler & Fiske, 2005). For example if we seek to determine whether a person’s conscious social goals can influence the process of person perception even at early stages indexed by activity patterns in the amygdale. Wheeler & Fiske (2005) says obtaining such outcomes would reveal that aspirations direct intolerance than regularly disguised.
Implicit prejudice is applied in phenomenon’s when the knowledge about characteristics of a segregated cluster of people is unavoidably stimulated in the company of a constituent of that faction. Wheeler & Fiske (2005) says that once this structure for relating with the entity is triggered intolerance follows. Studies indicate that more restrained implicit intolerance toward a collection of people still is apparent on indirect actions. For example time stress, need for closure, rational mental load, and common thought ambitions all support intolerance. When applied in category based response phenomenon, inherent bigotry centers mainly on eagerly obvious aspects such as age, ethnicity and sex (Wheeler & Fiske, 2005).
Outcome dependency on other person encourages perceivers to focus on the other person’s individual attributes that go beyond or contradict group stereotypes (Wheeler & Fiske, 2005). According to Chen & Bargh (1997), conscious expectancies about to a target individual can lead to selective information gathering about and interpretation of the target’s behavior and thereby produce stereotype consistent evidence. Wheeler & Fiske (2005) says that “the initial activation of stereotyped knowledge is not fully automatic, but rather depends on factors such as cognitive load, attention capacity and processing objectives” (p. 57). This implies that if the observer’s attention is overloaded or not motivated to process the target as a human, he or she may fail to activate relevant stereotype knowledge in the first place.
Understanding Implicit Prejudice
The most common implicit prejudice measure is in an in group name, face or a positive word while another key for an out group name/face or a negative word (Smith & Mackie, 2000). From the data in the two articles it can be demonstrated that in-group positive and out-group negative in organizational hiring decisions are the default cognitive associations for most people. Wittenbrink, Judd & Park (1997) indicated that implicit prejudice towards black people could be reduced by first exposing participants to a series of pictures of famous and positively viewed black people. According to Smith & Mackie (2000), implicit prejudice is reduced when pictures of black and white targets are presented in prejudice inconsistent contexts.
In many organizations it has been noted that black people show less positivism towards whites and negativity towards blacks on implicit measures than do white people. Smith & Mackie (2000) also says that black people are not better at controlling their racial bias; instead they just have less biased associations in the first place, commonly because of more frequent exposure to positive black exemplars. Implicit attitudes basically predict more spontaneous race related behaviors such as non-verbal features of interracial interaction (Smith & Mackie, 2000).
In many colleges whites regard themselves as none prejudiced and as people who consciously and sincerely endorse egalitarian values. In companies, implicit prejudice can be shown through coherent acts of favoritism in hiring decisions where the decision can be attributed to nonracial factors (Smith & Mackie, 2000). For example, in many colleges, it has been noted that white college students tend to offer more lenient sentences of judgments to black than white defendants in situations where clear evidence against the defendant did not exist.
In conclusion, implicit prejudice actions toward several clusters of people such as blacks, women, poor people, and homosexuals compare more robustly and form a single broad factor. In addition the implicit association tests can be used with race investigative stimuli such as words or pictures related to African Americans to give researchers a measure of implicit racial prejudice. In this context it can be noted that prejudice stems from social norms and limited education and personality characteristics of individuals.