The use of implicit personality tests to measure implicit biases and their potential

impact on legal decision-making and jury selection.

BLJ 1.6 – FUNDAMENTALS OF HUMAN PSYCHOLOGY

REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Submitted by

Anshita
UID - UGJ23-47
Course – BA.LLB.(ADJUDICATION AND JUSTICING)
Year: 2023 Semester: FIRST

Submitted to

Prof. Yuvaraj S
Assistant Professor of Psychology
August 2023

MAHARASHTRA NATIONAL LAW UNIVERSITY, NAGPUR

ABSTRACT

Implicit personality tests have developed into helpful tools in psychology and social science
that shed light on the underlying theories of human cognition and conduct. These tests have
generated a lot of discussion in the context of judicial decision-making and jury selection
since they are intended to identify any potential unconscious biases that people may have. In
order to safeguard the concepts of justice as the court system strives to be impartial and fair,
it is essential to understand the potential effects of disguised prejudices. People who have
implicit biases do so because of society and cultural norms. These biases are subtle and
perhaps unintentional.

RESEARCH METHODOLOGY

The study methodology explores the complex interplay between unconscious biases and the
legal system. Researchers use implicit personality theories and unconscious personality tests
to examine the possible impact of latent biases on jury selection and judicial decisions. A
crucial strategy is the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which uses rigorously recorded studies
of subconscious reactions to stimuli to uncover hidden biases. This evidence demonstrates
how unintentional prejudices might influence behaviour through influencing judgements
made during procedures like jury selection and legal arguments.
REVIEW OF LITERATURE

Code No.: 1

Title: DO BLACK INJURIES MATTER? : IMPLICIT BIAS AND JURY DECISION

MAKING IN TORT CASES

Author: JONATHAN CARDI, VALERIE P. HANSt & GREGORY PARKS

Journal/Book: Southern California Law Review

Volume/Issue/Page: Cardi, J., Hans, V. P., & Parks, G. (2019). Do Black Injuries Matter?:
Implicit Bias and Jury Decision Making in Tort Cases. S. Cal. L. Rev., 93, 507.

URL/DOI:

https://heinonline-org.elibrarynlunagpur.remotexs.in/HOL/Page?
public=true&handle=hein.journals/
scal93&div=19&start_page=507&collection=usjournals&set_as_cursor=0&men_tab=sr
chresults

Summary: A recent study has discovered that judgments regarding tort injuries are
significantly impacted by both racial and implicit racial bias. The participants in the study
had different racial backgrounds and were assigned the task of evaluating the legal
responsibility and distribution of drugs. Individuals who received high scores on the Implicit
Association Test (IAT) demonstrated a tendency to assign a greater degree of responsibility
to black defendants, thus revealing a complex correlation between race and bias. The rеsеarch
employed contextual tort scenarios to examine how the race of both the plaintiff and
defendant affected legal responsibility and monetary damages. It has been frequently
observed that black plaintiffs tend to receive smaller compensation in comparison to non-
black plaintiffs, whereas black defendants typically pay approximately 10%, although it is
possible that these disparities can be attributable to factors other than race. Implicit racial
bias, also known as implicit bias, has been a subject of discussion for the past two decades.
Research on implicit bias has suggested that race unconsciously affects cognitive judgment
and decision-making. These biases are discriminatory biases that arise from implicit attitudes
or stereotypes. For more than two decades, empirical psychological research has explored
implicit social cognition, which encompasses implicit bias. Traditional beliefs and common
understandings about human thought and social behavior place emphasis on accepting
thoughts and conscious intentions as the primary motivators behind explicit beliefs and
voluntary behavior. However, social influences within intеrviеw and rеsеarch sеttings can
lead individuals to inaccurately articulate their explicit beliefs. Implicit social cognition posits
that individuals lack complete awareness of their thoughts and the ability to control the
behaviors that result from them. Mental processes include implicit memory, implicit
perception, implicit attitudes, implicit stereotypes, implicit self-esteem, and implicit self-
concept. The Implicit Association Test (IAT) has been utilized to assess individual
differences in implicit cognition, although its effectiveness in evaluating evaluative
associations that give rise to implicit attitudes remains a challenge for researchers.

Methods: The research study involved participants who examined and evaluated two tort
scenarios to determine the legal responsibility of the defendant and the appropriate damages
for the plaintiff. These scenarios were based on real civil cases, and participants were
required to rate the defendant's legal responsibility using a five-point scale. They were also
tasked with determining the monetary compensation they would award the plaintiff if the
defendant was found legally liable by the jury. In the second phase of the study, a
computerized task was conducted to gather basic demographic data by establishing
connections between different categories of individuals and objects. The researchers
hypothesized that these measures would show a significant correlation, indicating that
individuals who practiced higher monetary duties would also be granted a substantial award
amount. After completing the tort scenario phase, participants were directed to the Harvard
IAT website, where they took the implicit racial attitudes test. During this process,
participants were asked to provide demographic information, including their gender, race,
Hispanic/Latino ethnicity, age category, level of educational attainment, employee status,
occupational category, and combined household income category.

Themes/Topics:

 Unconscious Biasеs in Court: The study recognizes that research on unconscious

biases in courtrooms has explored various aspects, such as how biases affect jurors'
perceptions of extraordinary witness testimony, attornеys' jury selection strategies,
and the practice of and appropriate response to bias in judges.
 The Impact on Attornеy Communications: Implicit bias can also affect interactions
and communications between attornеys involved in a case. This suggests that biases
 may influence how organizations practice their arguments and make strategic
decisions.
 Participant Bias in Tort Cases: The research notes that there is a lack of common
research on participant bias in tort cases, which refers to the biases exhibited by jurors
and other participants in those cases. This is a gap that the research aims to fill.
 Empirical Proof: Justin Lеvinson's experience, cited in the research, provides
evidence of how participants systemically misremember and generate false memories
in racially biased ways, afflicting the definition of tort liability by jurisprudence.
Code No.: 2
Title: “First, Do No Harm. On Addressing the Problem of Implicit Bias in Juror Decision
Making”
Author: By “Jennifer K. Elek & Paula Hannaforci-Agor”
Journal/Book: American Judges Association Court Review
Volume/Issue/Page : Volume 49, Issue 4 (2012), Pages 35-41
URL/DOI: https://digitalcommons.unl.edu/ajacourtreview/404/
Summary: Court attorneys have been endeavoring to address racial prejudice within the judicial
system for many years, with a particular focus on increasing the awareness of judges regarding
implicit bias and implementing strategies to minimize its influence on the process of decision-making.
However, the unequal treatment of racial minorities persists within the realm of criminal justice,
particularly in the context of jury trials. Attempts to decrease implicit bias, such as the utilization of
the "Implicit Association Test (IAT)," may incite negative reactions and impede the process of
decision-making. The "Implicit Association Test (IAT)" is a test that enjoys widespread usage and
serves to confirm that implicit racial bias possesses the ability to anticipate outcomes in social
interactions and decision-making across various contexts. Within the American justice system,
researchers have discovered correlations between implicit racial bias and inequities in studies defining
the concept, jury verdicts, and sentencing outcomes. The manifestation of racial biases within legal
decision-making often occurs in manners that are not easily explicable through demographic factors.
Studies indicate that the race of the defendant and the practices of the jury in delivering their verdict
are not directly associated, with the intensity of the evidence being the primary predictor. Instead,
scholars propose a more intricate approach that investigates how the attitudes and cognitive
frameworks of decision makers inform the perception and interpretation of critical evidence factors
for impartial legal judgment. In order to combat racial bias, it is crucial to have a fundamental
education and personal awareness of cognitive bias. However, efforts to discern must be consistent
and driven by individuals. The "Implicit Association Test (IAT)" is a widely utilized assessment that
eliminates the impact of implicit racial bias on social interactions and decision-making outcomes. It
has been linked to disparities in detention studies, jury verdicts, capital punishment, and other
consequential outcomes within the American justice system. Research has indicated that implicit bias
among judges is similarly affected as the general population. Racial biases in legal decision-making
often manifest in ways that are not easily explicable by traditional factors such as the demographic
characteristics of trial participants. The connection between a defendant's race and the decisions of
jurors is not straightforward, with the strength of the evidence serving as the predominant predictor.
Studies on mock-jury deliberations demonstrate some indications of in-group biases, but research
focusing on actual juror decision-making reveals that the association between the juror and the
defendant accounts for only a small portion of the variation in jury verdicts. To address racial bias,
social interventions have shown promise, including providing basic education about implicit bias and
fostering personal awareness of cognitive bias. However, efforts to discern must be consistent and
driven by individuals. Discriminatory non-defendant verbal behavior can have a negative impact on
perceptions of race and responses, thus impeding future endeavors to engage in racial interaction.
Over the past two decades, there has been a significant shift in how judges manage jury trials, with the
traditional belief that juror impartiality is best maintained when jurors assume a passive role.
Historically, courts have relied on jury instructions to guide juror decision-making due to their cost-
effectiveness, efficiency, and ease of implementation. However, research provides mixed evidence
regarding their practical utility. Most studies confirm that jurors take the responsibility of applying the
law provided by the trial judge seriously, devoting up to one-quarter of their deliberation time to
focusing on jury instructions. However, research indicates that jurors have relatively low levels of
comprehension regarding the fundamental legal principles articulated in jury instructions. By
observing actual jury deliberations in 50 civil trials, researchers discovered that nearly 80% of jurors'
discussions concerning the instructions were accurate, and nearly half of the incorrect
communications were completely correct during deliberations. To fully comprehend the impact of any
jury instruction on juror decision-making, one must evaluate it within the context of group decision-
making. For instance, in a civil trial involving a complex medical malpractice case, the jury
instructions may contain detailed explanations of the standard of care, causation, and burden of proof.
During deliberations, jurors may initially struggle to fully grasp the legal principles. However,
through group discussions and clarification from fellow jurors, many of their initial
misunderstandings can be addressed and rectified, leading to a more precise understanding of the
instructions and ultimately influencing their final decision.

Themes/Topics:

 Long-Running Initiatives: The subject of discussion is the considerable and ongoing

work done by court administrators over the course of three decades to address and
rectify racial inequality within the justice system. This indicates their unwavering
commitment and desire to resolve this problem. Raising judicial awareness has
involved putting policies in place to reduce implicit bias's impact on decision-making
processes and educating judges about it. This highlights the notion that combating
bias necessitates a combination of scholarly endeavors and practical approaches.
  Disparities Continue: Racial minorities continue to face discriminatory treatment in
the criminal justice system despite the implementation of these policies, which is
particularly evident in jury trials. This demonstrates the continued challenges in
obtaining full justice and equity. To assess implicit racial bias, the Implicit
Association Test (IAT) is frequently used. Its use demonstrates how this kind of
prejudice affects social interactions and the decisions that are made.
 Complex Nature of Bias: The information at hand suggests that racial biases in legal
decision-making are not entirely explained by demographic factors. Instead, the
attitudes and cognitive frameworks of those making decisions impact these biases,
adding to the complexity of the issue.
 Education and self-awareness – These are key. In order to effectively combat racial
bias, one must have a solid education and be conscious of their own cognitive biases.
 Jury Instructions: The ability of jury instructions to guide and sway jurors' decisions
is what makes them so important. It's possible that juries don't fully understand legal
concepts, even though they take their duty very seriously. This highlights the
significance of providing them with clear instructions.

Analysis:

 It is evident that individuals belonging to the court community are actively seeking to
comprehend and address the overarching issue of implicit bias. They are fervently
demanding readily accessible solutions upon which they can take action.
 The interest displayed by judges and lawyers in expanding intervention measures to
jurors is noteworthy. They aim to achieve this through the creation of a specialized
jury instruction that addresses implicit bias.
 Judge Mark Bennett, who presided over jury trials in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Iowa, was the first known trial judge to incorporate this approach. More
recently, the Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association has
established a committee with the purpose of developing a range of options to mitigate
the impact of implicit bias in court proceedings. One such option includes a jury
instruction on implicit bias. Furthermore, discussions among members of pattern jury
instruction committees have consistently emphasized the importance of implicit-bias
instructions. Consequently, various versions of these instructions are either currently
available or will be in the near future.
 Regrettably, existing research indicates the potential for a negative outcome when
implementing an implicit-bias jury instruction. It is plausible that such an instruction
could exacerbate the manifestation of both implicit and explicit bias.
Code No.: 3
Title: “WHAT HAS LOVE GOT TO DO WITH IT?: SENTIMENTAL ATTACHMENTS
AND LEGAL DECISION-MAKING”
Authors: “DAVID MARKELL, TOM TYLER, AND SARAH F. BROSNAN”
Publication Date: 2012
Journal/Book: VILLANOVA LAW REVIEW
Volume/Issue/Page: VOLUME 57 2012 NUMBER 2

Summary : It is evident that individuals belonging to the court community are actively
seeking to comprehend and address the overarching issue of implicit bias. They are fervently
demanding readily accessible solutions upon which they can take action.

The interest displayed by judges and lawyers in expanding intervention measures to jurors is
noteworthy. They aim to achieve this through the creation of a specialized jury instruction
that addresses implicit bias.

Judge Mark Bennett, who presided over jury trials in the U.S. District Court, Northern
District of Iowa, was the first known trial judge to incorporate this approach. More recently,
the Criminal Justice Section of the American Bar Association has established a committee
with the purpose of developing a range of options to mitigate the impact of implicit bias in
court proceedings. One such option includes a jury instruction on implicit bias. Furthermore,
discussions among members of pattern jury instruction committees have consistently
emphasized the importance of implicit-bias instructions. Consequently, various versions of
these instructions are either currently available or will be in the near future.

Regrettably, existing research indicates the potential for a negative outcome when
implementing an implicit-bias jury instruction. It is plausible that such an instruction could
exacerbate the manifestation of both implicit and explicit bias.

It is not something that other people would understand, agree with, or share. An illustration of
value derived from ownership is the endowment effect, in which people value something they
have just come to possess more than they have previously indicated value for it. This body of
literature demonstrates how much more changeable people's perceptions of value are than any
sentimental value created by prolonged possession. It is challenging to measure the
endowment effect since it is a complex phenomenon that differs greatly between people and
situations. Many academics have come to the conclusion that it does exist and is an
evolutionary response that has an impact on how we perceive human conduct. The
endowment impact is now being included into policy by OMB and other parties. Due to
homeowners' disregard for fair market value, there is a pressing need to address the impact of
sentimental worth that goes beyond monetary value on governance. This is a problem
because it is challenging to fairly quantify sentimental worth. Numerous academics have
suggested methods to include in sentimental value when determining a property's valuation,
but none of them have been widely adopted. Given its inherent subjectivity, the question of
whether it is possible to give sentimental value weight in legal decisions still exists.
Numerous studies on the psychology of justice have shown that people's self-interested
motivations influence how they feel about justice and entitlement. This calls for a focus on
developing appropriate standards for evaluating value, which might contribute to the
motivation for embracing that value. The study sought to gain understanding of whether
current processes are effective at addressing sentimental value, why procedures are effective,
and suggestions for altering procedures to improve satisfaction when sentimental values are
significant. According to the study, legitimacy is related to people's inclination to trust the
rule of law and the acts of legal authorities. The ability of the legal system to use fair
procedures as a tool to develop and legitimize a specific approach to a level of compensation
when the government seizes private property is relevant in the eminent domain context.

Themes/Topics:
 Legal Process Preferences and Government Trust: Preferences for legal procedures
are significantly influenced by local government trust.
 Sentimental Value: Sentimental value is a personal feeling of value connected to
things or connections. It implies that sentimental value can affect how people perceive
value.
 Legal Subjectivity: The subjective nature of sentimental value creates concerns
regarding whether it may be taken into account when making decisions in the legal
system.
 These topics emphasize the intricate interactions between trust, emotion, and legal
judgment, highlighting the significance of taking into account sentimental value in
diverse governance and legal contexts.

Analysis:
It is especially important to find a process (and fait accompli) that convinces the user that the
product will succeed and that the outcome will satisfy their needs and interests. According to
Professors Nadlers and Diamond, the Klo court disregarded the careful planning and
democratic deliberation that it claimed justified the product's taking. While it may seem
appealing to apply the process to procedural fraud concerns, doing so could help or hinder the
creation of fraud detection laws that encourage growth and innovation.
Code No.: 4
Title: “A NORMALITY BIAS IN LEGAL DECISION MAKING”
Author: Robert A. Prenticet & Jonathan J. Koehlertt
Publication Date: 2003
Journal/Book: Cornell Law Review
Volume/Issue/Page: Volume 88 of the Cornell Law Review
URL/DOI: https://heinonline-org.elibrarynlunagpur.remotexs.in/HOL/P?h=hein.journals/
clqv88&i=597

Summary : Legal scholars are now taking cognitive forces into consideration, although legal
decision makers still frequently evaluate causality and assign blame. Being that inaction
usually maintains the status quo while action usually upends it, the omission bias—a
phenomenon in which juries perceive a stronger causal relationship between negative
outcomes and actions—is frequently self-reinforcing. On the other hand, the normalcy bias is
dominant because it leads juries to inflict heavier penalties in cases involving abnormal
states. Because of this legal conservative mindset, many antiquated laws continue to be in
effect. The distinction between action and inaction under common law is explained in part by
the intuitive method of decision-making. But scientific data suggests a cognitive explanation,
since people can still distinguish between obligations and acts even when the characteristic
that usually makes them different is absent. The actor effect highlights the omission bias,
which explains why people judge actions more harshly than omissions. Legal decision
makers tend to assign blame for bad outcomes to actions, as they associate greater
responsibility with abnormal actions. The status quo bias suggests people prefer the current
state of affairs over a different one, often used by companies to influence consumer
preferences and legal decisions. The theory of loss aversion posits that individuals tend to
experience greater distress from losses compared to the satisfaction they derive from equivalent gains.
This phenomenon has implications in the legal realm, as it can serve as a catalyst for the introduction
of new legislation and decrease the appeal of litigation. Furthermore, this theory plays a role in
determining the value of compensatory damages in legal cases. The presence of biases such as the
status quo bias, endowment effect, and loss aversion poses a challenge to the conventional economic
model of rational decision-making, leading to decisions that are inconsistent and suboptimal.
Specifically, the anchoring bias, a cognitive shortcut used to estimate quantities, is highly relevant in
understanding these phenomena. Empirical research has demonstrated that even anticipated emotions
have an influence on decision-making processes, with regret being the most extensively studied
emotional factor that impacts judgment and choice. Individuals frequently take into account their
feelings or the anticipation of feelings when making decisions, independent of the utility or disutility
associated with potential outcomes. This phenomenon is exemplified in legal decision-making, where
individuals may choose Alternative A despite the higher expected value of Alternative B. Termed as
the anticipated regret theory, it posits that individuals experience regret if their choice leads to a worse
outcome and subsequently adjust their preferences to avoid such regret. Transcription theory
suggests that people organize their thoughts about the physical and social world in terms of
causal relationships, determining to what cause or set of causes particular effects can be
attributed. People are more likely to perceive causal properties in actions than inactions, and
perceived intentionality may act as a mediating variable between causality and responsibility.
Evidence suggests that people view an actor's actions as more blameworthy if they are more
closely connected causally with a victim's injuries, but also as more causal if they are more
blameworthy. Attribution theory suggests that the normal human reaction is to feel that the
person who failed in their duty to prevent harm is less blameworthy than if they had produced
the harm alone by active misconduct. Affective theorists and legal philosophers suggest that
unusual acts and circumstances are more causal candidates than more usual ones, leading to
greater regret and blame . Mock jurors often award higher compensation to robbery victims
when they are told that the robbery occurred in a store that the victim visited infrequently.
The jury's interpretation of the meaning of guiding legal principles may be influenced by this
normalcy bias. Determining causality and apportioning blame, responsibility, and punishment
require the psychological process of counterfactual thinking, which entails imagining
possible but non-occurring states of the world. Because the results of legal cases are typically
final, fact finders can identify "but for" causal factors with the use of counterfactual
simulations. This bias is present in a wide range of tasks involving both cognitive and
empirical judgments. According to studies, when people are the victims of unusual events,
others' emotional responses are heightened by counterfactual thoughts, which results in
increased sympathy and compensation for the victims. For instance, mock juries inflict
harsher prison sentences on rape victims who travel an uncommon path home. rapist. The
availability of counterfactual alternatives for an actor preceded by exceptional circumstances
leads mock jurors to judge the accident perpetrator as more negligent and deserving of a large
fine.

Themes/Topics :
 Omission Bias: Jurors tend to perceive a stronger causal connection between negative
outcomes and actions compared to inactions.
 This bias often reinforces itself, as inaction is seen as preserving the norm while
action disrupts it.
 Normality Bias: Legal decision-makers tend to impose harsher punishments in cases
involving abnormal states.This bias can lead to the retention of outdated laws that
align with the conservative approach to law.
 Status Quo Bias: People have a preference for maintaining the current state of affairs
over change. Companies and legal strategies may leverage this bias to influence
consumer preferences and legal decisions.
These themes shed light on the cognitive biases that legal decision-makers may exhibit,
which can significantly influence their judgments and decisions in legal contexts.
Code No.: 5
Title: “Implicit Jury Bias: Are Informational Interventions Effective?”

Author: Anna Roberts ,St. John's University

Other affiliations: Washington University in St. Louis

Bio: Anna Roberts is an academic researcher from St. John's University. The author has
contributed to research in topics: Criminal justice & Conviction. The author has an hindex of
4, co-authored 14 publications receiving 55 citations. Previous affiliations of Anna Roberts
include Washington University in St. Louis.
Topics: Criminal justice, Conviction, Jury, Impeachment, Law enforcement
Publication Date: 01 Sep 2018
Journal/Book: Social Science Research Network

URL - Angela, M., Jones., Kimberly, Wong., Courtney, N., Meyers., Christine, L., Ruva.
(2021). Trial by Tabloid: Can Implicit Bias Education Reduce Pretrial Publicity Bias?:.
Criminal Justice and Behavior, 009385482110269-. doi:10.1177/00938548211026956

Introduction of the paper:

 It introduces the concept of implicit bias and its implications for juries, highlighting
the need to tackle these biases.
 The paper reviews the existing efforts made to use educational interventions to
address implicit jury bias and explores proposed interventions.
 The interventions discussed include jury orientation, jury instructions, expert
testimony, individuation, and race salience.
 The chapter concludes by discussing the primary obstacles faced in implementing
these interventions.

Conclusions from the paper:

  The paper explores the effectiveness of educational interventions in addressing
implicit jury bias.

 Existing and proposed interventions include jury orientation, jury instructions, expert
testimony, individuation, and race salience.

 The paper reviews the primary obstacles to these interventions.

 The effectiveness of these interventions in tackling implicit jury biases that threaten
trial fairness is discussed.

Results of the paper:

This study looks at how well educational interventions can remove unconscious jury bias.

• The jury instructions, individuation, expert testimony, jury orientation, and racial salience
are among the current interventions that are reviewed.

• The paper discusses the difficulties in implementing these strategies.

• It is examined whether these interventions are effective in lessening implicit jury prejudices
that compromise the fairness of trials.

Note: The study provides no exact quantitative findings or conclusions regarding the
effectiveness of these therapies. Examining and discussing planned and ongoing therapies
together with the difficulties they encounter are its primary goals.

Methods used in this paper:

 The paper utilizes a literature review approach to examine the effectiveness of

educational interventions in addressing implicit jury bias.

 It reviews and analyzes existing interventions such as jury orientation, jury

instructions, expert testimony, individuation, and race salience.

 The paper also discusses proposed interventions and their potential impact on
mitigating implicit jury biases.
  It identifies and reviews the primary obstacles and challenges associated with
implementing these interventions.

Future works suggested in this paper:

Further research is needed to evaluate the effectiveness of educational interventions in

addressing implicit jury bias and their impact on the fairness of trials.

 Future studies could explore the potential of combining multiple interventions, such
as jury orientation, jury instructions, expert testimony, individuation, and race
salience, to create a comprehensive approach to mitigating implicit biases in juries.
 Future research could also focus on identifying and addressing the primary obstacles
to implementing educational interventions for implicit jury bias, such as logistical
challenges or resistance from legal professionals.

Note: The paper suggests several areas for future research, including evaluating the
effectiveness of interventions, exploring combined approaches, studying long-term effects,
and addressing implementation obstacles. These suggestions aim to enhance our
understanding of implicit jury bias and improve the fairness of trials.
CODE NO. 6

Title: “Alignment Between Antecedents and Interventions: The Critical Role of Implicit
Bias”

Publication Date: 01 Sep 2016

Journal/Book : Industrial and Organizational Psychology (Cambridge University Press
(CUP)
Volume/Issue/Page: Vol. 9, Iss: 3, pp 583-590

URL/DOI : Tomlin, K. A., & Bradley-Geist, J. C. (2016, September). Alignment Between

Antecedents and Interventions: The Critical Role of Implicit Bias. Industrial and
Organizational Psychology, 9(3), 583–590. https://doi.org/10.1017/iop.2016.58

Summary: According to the definition given in the article, implicit bias is the term used to
describe people's unintentional attitudes or stereotypes that may have an impact on their
decisions and behaviors. These prejudices significantly affect a person's ability to make
decisions, hire people, and lead, among other aspects of their professional lives. These
prejudices are typically deeply embedded in people.

The article's main focus is on implicit bias's crucial role in ensuring that, in the context of
organizations, interventions—actions or plans intended to achieve a specific goal—and
antecedents—factors or conditions that precede an event—align. The authors contend that
considering the unconscious prejudices of individuals working for the organization increases
the likelihood of success in advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion. The article claims that
failing to address implicit biases may make interventions less effective. The article claims
that failing to address implicit biases may make interventions less effective. Interventions
may be less successful and even unintentionally reinforce preexisting biases and disparities in
the workplace if there is no alignment. The authors support their arguments with both
theoretical insights and empirical data. They argue that a complete understanding of the
nature and consequences of implicit bias in the workplace is necessary to design interventions
with a higher chance of success. To do this, they stress how important it is to recognize and
assess the specific implicit biases that are widespread in an organization. In order to
accomplish this, they emphasize how crucial it is to identify and evaluate the particular
implicit biases that are pervasive in an organization.

It is likely that the article covers a range of tactics and methods that can improve how well
interventions align with implicit biases in order to produce better results. To reduce bias and
encourage diversity and inclusion, these tactics could include tailored training courses,
awareness campaigns, and adjustments to the organization's policies and procedures.

The implications of this research are significant. It highlights how important it is to recognize
that implicit biases exist in organizational environments and that they may have an impact on
decisions and behavior. To effectively address these biases, interventions must be tailored to
the unique context of each organization, taking into consideration the specific implicit biases
that exist. By doing this, businesses can foster a more diverse and equal workplace.

To sum up, the article "Alignment Between Antecedents and Interventions: The Critical Role
of Implicit Bias" in the field of industrial and organizational psychology is thought-
provoking. It highlights how closely implicit bias and the effectiveness of workplace
diversity and inclusion initiatives are related. Organizations can improve the alignment of
their interventions and ultimately strive towards more diverse and inclusive work
environments by recognizing and addressing implicit biases. Researchers, practitioners, and
policymakers interested in promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion in organizational
settings will find this article to be a useful resource.

Methods:
CENTRAL THESIS

 The central thesis of the article revolves around the critical role that implicit bias
plays in the alignment between antecedents (factors or conditions that precede an
event) and interventions (actions or strategies aimed at achieving a specific outcome)
in the organizational context. The authors argue that interventions designed to
 promote diversity, equity, and inclusion are more likely to be effective if they take
into account the implicit biases of individuals within the organization.
 The article suggests that failure to address implicit biases can hinder the success of
interventions. Without this alignment, interventions may be less likely to achieve their
intended goals and can even inadvertently reinforce existing biases and inequalities
within the workplace.
 The implications of this research are significant. It underscores the importance of
recognizing that implicit biases exist in organizational settings and that they can
impact decision-making and behavior. To address these biases effectively,
interventions must be tailored to the unique context of each organization,
acknowledging the specific implicit biases that are present. In doing so, organizations
can create a more inclusive and equitable work environment.1
 In conclusion, "Alignment Between Antecedents and Interventions: The Critical Role
of Implicit Bias" is a thought-provoking article in the field of industrial and
organizational psychology. It emphasizes the crucial relationship between implicit
bias and the success of diversity and inclusion interventions in the workplace. By
acknowledging and addressing implicit biases, organizations can enhance the
alignment of their interventions, ultimately working towards more diverse and
inclusive work environments. This article serves as a valuable resource for
researchers, practitioners, and policymakers interested in fostering diversity, equity,
and inclusion in organizational settings.2

Potential drawbacks of implicitly focused interventions:

Implicitly focused interventions may not directly address the explicit and overt
manifestations of racial bias, potentially leading to a lack of awareness and understanding of
the issue.

1
Bower, G.H. (1981). “Mood and Memory. American Psychologist, 36, 129-148”. Costa, P. T, & McCrae, R. R.
(1992). Four ways five factors are basic. Personality and Individual Differences, 13, 653-665.

2
Markus, Hazel. “Self-schemata and Processing Information About the Self.” “Journal of Personality and Social
Psychology, vol. 35, no. 2, American Psychological Association (APA), Feb. 1977, pp. 63–78. Crossref,
https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.35.2.63.
  There is a lack of empirical evidence provided in the sources to support the
effectiveness of implicitly focused interventions in reducing racial bias in policing.
 Implicitly focused interventions may not effectively challenge deeply ingrained biases
and prejudices, as they primarily target implicit biases rather than explicit attitudes
and behaviors.

 There may be challenges in implementing implicitly focused interventions, such as

resistance from individuals who may not recognize or acknowledge their own biases.
 Implicitly focused interventions may not address systemic issues and structural
inequalities that contribute to racial bias in policing, as they primarily focus on
individual-level biases.

Overall, while implicitly focused interventions may have potential benefits, it is important to
consider these potential drawbacks and limitations in order to develop a comprehensive
approach to addressing racial bias in policing.
CODE NO:7

Title: Making implicit personality theories explicit: A classroom demonstration

Author: Dweck, C. S., & Wortman, C. B.

Publication Date: 1982

Journal/Book: Psychological Inquiry

Volume/Issue/Page: Volume 4, Issue 4, Pages 367-376

URL/DOI: DOI: 10.1207/s15327965pli0404_3

Summary: The research article examines a demonstration conducted in a classroom setting

with the objective of making implicit personality theories explicit. It delves into the manner
in which individuals possess implicit beliefs concerning personality traits and the
consequential impact of these beliefs on their evaluations and conduct. The study proposes
that through the explicit articulation of these implicit theories, individuals can attain a deeper
comprehension of their personal biases and enhance their decision-making processes.

Methods: The research employs a classroom demonstration as a means to bring forth implicit
personality theories. Participants partake in activities and discussions that unveil their implicit
beliefs. The study utilizes both qualitative and quantitative approaches to evaluate alterations
in participants' awareness of their implicit theories and the subsequent judgments they make.

Quotation: "Implicit personality theories refer to the beliefs and assumptions that individuals
harbor concerning the interconnectedness of diverse personality traits. These theories remain
implicit as they are often not consciously acknowledged by those who hold them."

Themes/Topics: The primary themes explored within this research encompass implicit
personality theories, the effects of these theories on evaluations and behavior, methodologies
for rendering implicit beliefs explicit, and the potential advantages associated with this
process in ameliorating decision-making.

Analysis: The article imparts valuable insights into the implicit beliefs individuals possess
regarding personality traits and their impact on decision-making. It underscores the
significance of making these implicit theories explicit in order to enhance self-awareness and
potentially mitigate biases. This research harbors implications for the realms of psychology,
education, and decision science as it addresses the cognitive processes that underlie our
evaluations and actions.
CODE NO. 8

JOURNAL ARTICLE TITLE - The impact of legal expertise on moral decision-making

biases

JOURNAL NAME - Baez, Sandra, et al. “The Impact of Legal Expertise on Moral
Decision-making Biases.” Humanities and Social Sciences Communications, vol. 7, no. 1,
Springer Science and Business Media LLC, Sept. 2020. Crossref,
https://doi.org/10.1057/s41599-020-00595-8.

CONTRIBUTING AUTHORS - Sandra Baez, Michel Patiño-Saenz, Jorge Martínez-

Cotrina, Diego Mauricio Aponte, Juan Carlos Caicedo, Hernando Santamaría-García, Daniel
R. Pastor, Daniel R. Pastor, Maria Luz Gonzalez-Gadea, Maria Luz Gonzalez-Gadea, Maria
Luz Gonzalez-Gadea, Martín D. Haissiner, Martín D. Haissiner, Martín D. Haissiner, Adolfo
M. García, Agustín Ibáñez

VOLUME - 7

ISSUE - 1

DOI - 10.1057/S41599-020-00595-8

PUBLISHER NAME - Palgrave

DATE - 2020-09-23

SUMMARY –

The journal article titled "The Impact of Legal Expertise on Moral Decision-making Biases,"
authored by Sandra Baez and colleagues, explores the intersection of legal expertise and
moral decision-making biases. Published in "Humanities and Social Sciences
Communications" in September 2020, this research delves into the complex relationship
between individuals with legal training and their propensity to exhibit particular biases when
making moral decisions.

The study begins by acknowledging that individuals with legal expertise are frequently
engaged in the process of making moral decisions, often within a legal framework. However,
the authors posit that this legal training might influence individuals' moral judgments in
unique ways, possibly leading to both advantageous and detrimental effects. The research
focuses on two primary objectives: first, to understand how legal expertise impacts moral
decision-making; and second, to assess whether individuals with legal training exhibit
different biases compared to laypersons. To address these objectives, the authors employ a
series of experiments and surveys. The findings of the study indicate that individuals with
legal training indeed demonstrate distinctive patterns of moral decision-making. Legal
experts are shown to possess a heightened sensitivity to legal norms and principles when
making moral judgments. This suggests that their decisions are more likely to align with
established legal standards and precedents, emphasizing a legalistic approach to morality.

Furthermore, the research identifies that legal experts exhibit a decreased reliance on
emotional and visceral responses when making moral judgments. This contrasts with
laypersons, who often rely on their emotions and intuitive reactions. Instead, legal
professionals rely more on cognitive reasoning and analytical evaluation, emphasizing a
rationalized and logical approach to moral decision-making.Despite these distinct advantages,
the study also reveals potential pitfalls associated with legal expertise. Legal professionals,
while exhibiting a greater adherence to legal norms, are also prone to legalistic biases. They
may overemphasize legal considerations at the expense of ethical or moral principles,
potentially leading to morally questionable decisions.

In conclusion, the research highlights that individuals with legal expertise have a unique
moral decision-making profile. Their judgments are often grounded in legal norms, marked
by rationalized thinking, and less influenced by emotional reactions. However, these
advantages come with the risk of legalistic biases that can divert their decisions from ethical
considerations. This research provides valuable insights into the interplay between legal
expertise and moral decision-making, shedding light on both its advantages and potential
limitations. These findings are relevant to the fields of law, ethics, and psychology, offering a
nuanced understanding of how legal training can shape our moral judgments and decisions.
Methods: The research employs a multi-method approach to investigate the impact of legal
expertise on moral decision-making biases. The study combines surveys and experimental
methods to gather and analyze data. Participants, including legal experts and laypersons, are
presented with a series of moral dilemmas and are asked to make judgments. These dilemmas
are carefully designed to elicit moral decision-making, and participants' responses are
recorded and analyzed. Surveys are also administered to collect background information
about participants, including their legal training and professional experience. Statistical
analyses and comparisons are used to evaluate the differences in moral decision-making
between the two groups.

Quotation: While there are no specific quotations provided in the original request, an
illustrative quote relevant to the research could be, "Legal expertise significantly influences
the cognitive and emotional processes underlying moral decision-making, leading to a
distinctive moral decision-making profile."

Themes/Topics: The primary focal points and subject matter addressed in the investigation
encompass:

Legal Proficiency and Ethical Decision-Making: The examination delves into the manner in
which individuals possessing legal training approach ethical decision-making and whether
their legal expertise gives rise to distinct biases and inclinations.

Awareness of Legal Norms: The research scrutinizes the extent to which legal experts
demonstrate sensitivity towards legal norms and principles in their ethical judgments,
emphasizing the impact of their legal background on decision-making.

Emotion versus Reasoning: A central motif concerns the juxtaposition between emotional
and rational decision-making. The investigation evaluates whether legal experts rely less on
emotional reactions and more on cognitive reasoning when arriving at ethical decisions.

Legalistic Prejudices: The potential existence of legalistic prejudices in legal experts

constitutes another pivotal subject. The study explores whether legal professionals may
accord priority to legal considerations over ethical or moral principles, potentially resulting in
biases.
Comparative Examination: A significant theme revolves around the comparative analysis of
ethical decision-making between individuals with legal expertise and laypersons. The
research endeavors to identify and quantify the disparities in their approaches and biases.

Analysis: The current investigation presents noteworthy insights into the convergence of legal
competence and ethical decision-making. It sheds light on the intricate connection between legal
education and moral evaluations, emphasizing the nuanced approaches employed by legal experts
when faced with ethical dilemmas. The study highlights the advantages of legal practitioners'
attentiveness to legal standards and their systematic decision-making process. Nevertheless, it also
underscores the potential disadvantages, such as biased legal perspectives, that could undermine the
ethical integrity of their judgments. The findings have implications for the implementation of legal
practices, ethical considerations, and psychological factors, offering a comprehensive viewpoint on
the impact of legal expertise on biases in moral decision-making. The research enhances our
understanding of how individuals from diverse professional backgrounds tackle complex moral
dilemmas, with wider relevance to the fields of law and ethics.