Implicit Bias, Externalism and Second Person

Authors

DOI:

https://doi.org/10.5007/1808-1711.2025.e96263

Keywords:

Implicit Bias, Social Cognition, Representation, Stereotypes

Abstract

In this text, I argue that the psychological study of implicit bias can benefit from second-person approaches. Specifically, I show that dominant experimental approaches based on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) presuppose an internalist account of implicit bias, according to which the possession of an implicit bias is identified with the possession of a conceptual association. By equating the possession of implicit bias with the possession of a conceptual association, the traditional view reduces bias to a particular activation in memory and ignores the sociocultural aspects involved in this phenomenon. To avoid this, I suggest adopting an externalist perspective, considering a second-person approach that allows sociocultural and normative aspects to be included in the identification of bias. Finally, I explore some consequences of the externalist proposal for the measurement and intervention on implicit bias.

References

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(4): 652–661. https://doi.org/10/d5k6tj

Frankish, K. 2016. Playing Double: Implicit Bias, Dual Levels, and Self-Control. In: M. Brownstein; J. Saul (Eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy: Vol. 1: Metaphysics and epistemology, p.23-46. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Fricker, M. 2007. Epistemic Injustice: Power and the Ethics of Knowing. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Gallistel, C. R.; Matzel, L. D. 2013. The Neuroscience of Learning: Beyond the Hebbian Synapse. Annual Review of Psychology 64(7.1-7.32): 169–200. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-113011-143807

Greenwald, A. G.; Banaji, M. R. 1995. Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review 102(1): 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295X.102.1.4

Greenwald, A. G.; McGhee, D. E.; Schwartz, J. L. K. 1998. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 74(6): 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464

Hebb, D. O. 1949. The Organization of Behavior: A Neuropsychological Theory. New York: John Wiley & Sons, Inc.

Kalis, A.; Ghijsen, H. 2022. Understanding implicit bias: A case for regulative dispositionalism. Philosophical Psychology 35(8): 1212–1233. https://doi.org/10.1080/09515089.2022.2046261

Levy, N. 2015. Neither Fish nor Fowl: Implicit Attitudes as Patchy Endorsements. Noûs 49(4): 800–823. https://doi.org/10.1111/nous.12074

Machery, E. 2016. De-Freuding Implicit Attitudes. In M. Brownstein; J. M. Saul (Eds.), Implicit bias and philosophy: Vol. 1: Metaphysics and Epistemology, p.104–129. Oxford: Oxford University Press.

Machery, E. 2022. Anomalies in implicit attitudes research. WIREs Cognitive Science 13(1): 1-15. https://doi.org/10.1002/wcs.1569

Mandelbaum, E. 2016. Attitude, Inference, Association: On the Propositional Structure of Implicit Bias. Noûs 50(3): 629–658. https://doi.org/10/gf4fx4

Marini, M.; Sriram, N.; Schnabel, K.; Maliszewski, N.; Devos, T.; Ekehammar, B.; Wiers, R.; HuaJian, C.; Somogyi, M.; Shiomura, K.; Schnall, S.; Neto, F.; Bar-Anan, Y.; Vianello, M.; Ayala, A.; Dorantes, G.; Park, J.; Kesebir, S.; Pereira, A.; Tulbure, B.; Ortner, T.; Stepanikova, I.; Greenwald, A. G.; Nosek, B. A. 2013. Overweight People Have Low Levels of Implicit Weight Bias, but Overweight Nations Have High Levels of Implicit Weight Bias. PLOS ONE 8 (12): 1-9. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0083543.

Mitchell, G.; Tetlock, P. E. 2017. Popularity as a Poor Proxy for Utility: The Case of Implicit Prejudice. In S. O. Lilienfeld; I. D. Waldman (Eds.), Psychological science under scrutiny, p.164-195. Oxford: Wiley Blackwell.

Nanay, B. 2021. Implicit Bias as Mental Imagery. Journal of the American Philosophical Association 7(3): 329–347. https://doi.org/10.1017/apa.2020.29

Payne, B. K.; Vuletich, H. A.; Lundberg, K. B. 2017. The Bias of Crowds: How Implicit Bias Bridges Personal and Systemic Prejudice. Psychological Inquiry 28(4): 233–248. https://doi.org/10.1080/1047840X.2017.1335568

Pérez, D. I.; Gomila, A. (2017). Lo que la segunda persona no es. In: D. I. Pérez; D. Lawler (Eds.), La segunda persona y las emociones, p.275-293. Buenos Aires: SADAF.

Phelan, S. M.; Puhl, R. M.; Burke, S. E.; Hardeman, R.; Dovidio, J. F.; Nelson, D. B.; Przedworski, J.; Burgess, D. J.; Perry, S.; Yeazel, M. W.; van Ryn, M. 2015. The mixed impact of medical school on medical students’ implicit and explicit weight bias. Medical Education 49(10): 983–992. https://doi.org/10.1111/medu.12770

Quine, W. V. O. 1969. Epistemology naturalized. In: Ontological Relativity and Other Essays, p.69-90. New York: Columbia University Press.

Schimmack, U. 2021. The Implicit Association Test: A Method in Search of a Construct. Perspectives on Psychological Science 16(2): 396–414. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619863798

Rae, J. R.; Newheiser, A.-K.; Olson, K. R. 2015. Exposure to Racial Out-Groups and Implicit Race Bias in the United States. Social Psychological and Personality Science 6(5): 535–543. https://doi.org/10.1177/1948550614567357

Rudman, L. A.; Greenwald, A. G.; McGhee, D. E. 2001. Implicit Self-Concept and Evaluative Implicit Gender Stereotypes: Self and Ingroup Share Desirable Traits. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin 27(9): 1164–1178. https://doi.org/10.1177/0146167201279009

Toribio, J. 2018. Implicit Bias: From social structure to representational format. THEORIA. An International Journal for Theory, History and Foundations of Science 33(1): 41–60. https://doi.org/10.1387/theoria.17751

Wiberg, M. 2006. Gender differences in the Swedish driving-license test. Journal of Safety Research 37(3): 285–291. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jsr.2006.02.005

Wilms, M.; Schilbach, L.; Pfeiffer, U.; Bente, G.; Fink, G. R.; Vogeley, K. 2010. It’s in your eyes—using gaze-contingent stimuli to create truly interactive paradigms for social cognitive and affective neuroscience. Social Cognitive and Affective Neuroscience 5(1): 98–107.

Published

2025-03-20