Implicit Race/Ethnic Prejudice in Mexican Americans

Abstract

Implicit race/ethnic prejudice was assessed using Spanish- and English-language versions of an Implicit Association Test that used Hispanic/Anglo first names and pleasant/unpleasant words as stimuli. This test was administered to a consecutive sample of Mexican American adults residing in the Rio Grande Valley region of Texas of whom about two-thirds chose to be tested in English and one-third preferred Spanish. Participants were mostly female (73%) with a mean age of 32 years and mean education of 13 years. Among 83 participants, 43% demonstrated in-group implicit prejudice while 26% showed out-group implicit prejudice toward Anglos. There was a significant negative correlation between family values (familism and filial piety) and implicit race/ethnic prejudice scores but no significant association was found between implicit race/ethnic prejudice scores and acculturation or skin tone. Results contribute to the ongoing controversy regarding the validity of implicit race/ethnic prejudice, supporting the concept that societal not individual prejudices are being measured.

Keywords

Implicit Association Test Mexican American acculturation familism skin tone

In modern American society there exists a strong contemporary social norm against behaving in an overtly prejudicial manner toward minorities (Shelton, Richeson, Salvatore, & Trawalter, 2005). Race/ethnic prejudice can be reliably established through patterns of repetitive discriminatory behavior as in Gonzalez v. Abercrombie & Fitch, a class action lawsuit that involved national hiring practices (AFjustice.com, 2006). It is more difficult to identify a specific instance of individual behavior as indicative of race/ethnic prejudice that according to popular social cognitive models (e.g., Duckitt, 1992) results from the natural social tendency of individuals to form in- and out-groups (Tajfel, 1970), combined with cognitive categorization (Allport, 1954). Modern common behavioral manifestations of race/ethnic prejudice are viewed as subtle and have been termed racial microaggressions, namely “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, and environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults to a target person or group” (Sue et al., 2007, p. 273). Microaggressions can take the form of (a) microassaults—verbal or nonverbal derogatory expressions made with the intent to hurt someone by name-calling, avoidant behavior, or purposeful discriminatory actions; (b) microinsults—communications that convey rudeness and insensitivity and demean a person’s racial heritage or identity; and (c) microinvalidations—communications that exclude, negate, or nullify a person’s psychological thoughts, feelings, or experiential reality.

What is considered a microaggression can vary among individuals, especially between the perpetrator and the recipient of an act. For example, Sue et al. (2007) consider the question, Where were you born? asked of a local-born Hispanic a microaggression, yet it could be interpreted as expressing a harmless interest in the person rather than a threat to his/her race/ethnic identity. The recipient of a perceived microaggression typically tries to determine the intention of the perpetrator to judge if the act was intended as hurtful or occurred out of ignorance regarding its possible negative interpretation. Asking a perpetrator to admit race/ethnic bias may not generate a valid response, as most people try to present themselves as well meaning, socially correct citizens who do not openly express prejudice (Katz & Hass, 1988). Over the last 20 to 30 years the concept of an unconscious or implicit (as opposed to explicit) form of race/ethnic prejudice has emerged based on findings from novel psychological measures (e.g., Devine, 1989).

Implicit cognitive processes are viewed as automatic, noneffortful, and passively (i.e., unintentionally) learned from the environment. They are measured by using indirect techniques (i.e., tasks that do not explicitly ask about race/ethnic prejudice) that avoid response bias and socially desirable responses (Aberson, Shoemaker, & Tomolillo, 2004). The correlation between implicit and explicit measures of race/ethnic prejudice is typically low (Greenwald, Uhlmann, Poehlman, & Banaji, 2009), due to measurement error, lack of conceptual match, and individual motivation to control explicit demonstrations of race/ethnic prejudice (Gawronski, LeBel, & Peters, 2007). Implicit race/ethnic prejudice has been found to correlate with certain implicit, nonverbal behaviors (e.g., eye contact, friendliness, and speech hesitations) in interracial interactions (Heider & Skrowronski, 2007; McConnell & Liebold, 2001), but the relationship between such nonverbal behaviors and race/ethnic prejudice is unclear. The lack of any “gold standard” indicator of race/ethnically prejudiced behavior that correlates with implicit racial prejudice has led to persisting concerns about the validity of the latter concept (e.g., De Houwer, 2001; Gawronski et al., 2007; Olson, Crawford, & Devlin, 2009; Popa-Roch & Delmas, 2010; Rothermund & Wentura, 2004).

Current Study

The Implicit Association Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) is the most commonly used experimental paradigm that purports to measure implicit racial prejudice. It is a visual reaction time task that requires participants to sort two dichotomous categories of stimuli (e.g., pleasant and unpleasant words, Hispanic and Anglo first names) presented via computer by making a response as quickly as possible on one of two keys operated by either the left or right hand. In theory, individuals will respond faster when sorting two categories of stimuli linked by a response with the same hand if the categories are implicitly associated in the brain (e.g., pleasant and Anglo) than if they are not so associated (e.g., unpleasant and Anglo). The crucial IAT implicit race/ethnic prejudice measure is the reaction time difference between a sorting block that pairs (i.e., same hand response) in-group/pleasant + out-group/unpleasant and a block that pairs in-group/unpleasant + out-group/pleasant. If the first block generates a faster response time it is taken as an indication of out-group implicit prejudice and vice versa.

The first goal of this study was to determine the prevalence of out- and in-group implicit prejudice among a community sample of Mexican Americans by using an Hispanic/Anglo version of the IAT that involved sorting pleasant/unpleasant words and Hispanic/Anglo first names. Most studies that have used the IAT to measure race/ethnic prejudice report a higher prevalence of out- than in-group prejudice especially when White American college students serve as participants, but some studies with lower status group members, like African Americans and gay men, have reported greater in-group prejudice (Dasgupta, 2004; Olson et al., 2009).

Previous research that has used Hispanic or Latino versions of the IAT has focused upon other questions. As illustration, Weyant (2005) used a version of the IAT that sorted Hispanic/Anglo first names and words associated with high/low intelligence and found a sample of predominantly White American psychology students associated low intelligence words more with Hispanic than Anglo first names. Blair, Judd, Havranek, and Steiner (2010) used a Latino/White version of the IAT and found Latino American participants showed almost no overall prejudice (M = 0.01; zero being no bias) compared to non-Hispanic Whites (M = 0.43) and African Americans (M = 0.13), but this involved averaging in- and out-group bias for each group.

The second goal of this study was to measure the relationship of three individual difference variables commonly associated with Mexican American culture to implicit race/ethnic prejudice scores. The three variables were acculturation, family values, and skin tone. One of the criticisms of the IAT as a measure of implicit racial prejudice is that it measures societal not individual prejudices (Olson et al., 2009). Significant correlations between individual difference variables and implicit prejudice scores could provide convergent validity that IAT scores measure individual prejudices. As there have been no prior studies, no predictions were made concerning the direction of correlation for each variable.

Acculturation describes the socialization process whereby immigrants gradually learn and adopt certain elements of mainstream culture from continuous first-hand contact. It is a continuous variable that has wide spread use in conceptualizing individual differences in race/ethnic identity in psychological research (Gasquoine, 2008). Higher levels of acculturation indicate greater affiliation with the dominant culture. Familism, or prioritizing the needs of the family over the individual, is an archetype commonly associated with Hispanic Americans (Houser, Wilczenski, & Ham, 2006). High family values are generally associated with positive behaviors, such as a lower risk of substance abuse among adolescents (Unger et al., 2002). Hispanic Americans are informally divided according to skin tone into Blanco (light complexion) and Moreno (darker complexion). Although Blancos and Morenos are differentiated primarily on skin tone, Morenos also have more indigenous (i.e., Native American) looking facial features than Blancos who have more Caucasian looking facial features (Uhlmann, Dasgupta, Ekgueta, Greenwald, & Swanson, 2002). Beauty ideals and lower criminality levels are associated with Blancos and higher social class and Hispanic American social, political, and economical power is maintained mainly by this grouping (e.g., Wade, 1997). Uhlmann et al. (2002) administered a Blanco:Moreno IAT (using pictures of faces as stimuli) to Hispanic American and Chilean college students and found strong implicit prejudice against Morenos in both groupings.

Method

Participants

One hundred Mexican American adults were recruited by word-of-mouth from the University of Texas-Pan American, South Texas Vocational Technical Institute, and Community Centers in Hidalgo County in the Rio Grande Valley region of South Texas. Over 90% of Hidalgo county residents are of Hispanic (especially Mexican) heritage. Many are subjectively fluent in both Spanish and English, switch easily between languages, have little foreign accent in either language, and speak Spanish (either exclusively, or in combination with English) at home. Inclusion criteria were (a) ≥ 18 years of age; and (b) Mexican heritage as defined by self-report. Data from participants (N = 17) who scored ≤ 5th percentile on the Matrix Reasoning subtest of the Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence (WASI; Wechsler, 1999) were excluded to avoid the possibility that limited visual-perceptual skill level could invalidate IAT scores. Cognitive skill levels have been related to IAT scores in college students (McFarland & Crouch, 2002) and this issue is especially relevant when testing participants with limited education.

The final sample consisted of 22 (27%) males and 61 (73%) females ranging in age from 18 to 58 (M = 31.61; SD = 12.40) years. Education levels ranged from 3 to 18 (M = 13; SD = 3.01) years. Fifty five participants (66%) were born in the United States and the rest (34%) were born in Mexico. Those born in Mexico had lived in the United States from 4 to 52 (M = 18.75; SD = 13.07) years. Fifty three (63%) of the participants chose to be tested in English and the rest (37%) chose Spanish. Forty five (60%) of the participants reported incomes that were below the median household income for the area (US$30,513).

Measures

Implicit race/ethnic prejudice: A modifiable version of the IAT was purchased from Millisecond software at http://faculty.washington.edu/agg/iat_materials.htm. Prior versions of race/ethnic prejudice IATs have been constructed using both picture (typically faces) and word (typically first names) race/ethnic stimuli, but words generally show greater effects (Foroni & Bel-Bahar, 2010). Hispanic/Anglo first names employed here were the same as in Weyant (2005), who had matched them on frequency of usage within the United States. IAT effects are thought to be influenced by stimulus familiarity differences (Rothermund & Wentura, 2004). There were three male Hispanic names (Carlos, Jose, and Miguel), three female Hispanic names (Maria, Juanita, and Consuela), three male Anglo names (Charles, Robert, and Patrick), and three female Anglo names (Nicole, Jenna, and Catherine). Ten words commonly used with the IAT were classified as either pleasant (lucky, honor, gift, miracle, happy, peace) or unpleasant (ugly, disaster, evil, grief, accident, poison) respectively. For the Spanish version of the IAT the first names were unchanged, but the pleasant/unpleasant words were translated using the method of back translation by two independent bilingual raters. Spanish pleasant words were suertudo, honor, regalo, milagro, felicidad, paz, and the unpleasant words were feo, desastre, mal, dolor, accidente, veneno.

The IAT program followed a seven block procedure with five practice blocks and generated a D score that represents the reaction time difference in responding to the other two sorting blocks where (a) Hispanic/unpleasant and Anglo/pleasant have the same keyed response (i.e., left or right hand); and (b) Hispanic/pleasant and Anglo/unpleasant have the same keyed response. Positive D scores indicate a greater association of Hispanic with unpleasant and Anglo with pleasant or in-group prejudice and negative D scores indicate a greater association of Anglo with unpleasant and Hispanic with pleasant or out-group prejudice. Test protocol called for any classification errors to be corrected before proceeding, the elimination of any trials with a response latency > 10,000milliseconds, and for the elimination of participants for whom > 10% of trials had a latency < 300milliseconds. No participants met the last criteria.

Visual-perceptual skill

The WASI Matrix Reasoning subtest has items that require visual-perceptual matches of sameness and symmetry and the solving of visual-perceptual analogy problems. It was administered in either Spanish or English with the only difference being the language of instruction. Spanish instructions were translated using standard back-translation techniques. Scale scores were generated for each language of administration from the same national, English-language, age-corrected norms.

Acculturation

The Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans (Cuellar, Arnold, & Maldonado, 1995) is available in both Spanish and English and uses a 5-point Likert-type response scale anchored from 1. Not at all to 5. Extremely often that measures identification with Mexican (17 items; e.g., I speak Spanish) and Anglo culture (13 items; e.g., I speak English) independently. Score was the mean for the Anglo orientation items minus the mean for the Mexican orientation items, with positive scores indicating greater Anglo orientation.

Family values

Family values were measured using the familism and filial piety (i.e., respect for elders and ancestors) subscales of the Cultural Values Scale (Unger et al., 2002) in either Spanish or English. This involved 12 familism items (e.g., As long as my parents are alive, I won’t move to a faraway state or country) and 6 filial piety items (e.g., I expect my relatives to help me when I need them) answered on a 4-point Likert-type scale anchored from 1. Strongly disagree to 4. Strongly agree. Score was the average per item (i.e., range of 1 to 4) with higher numbers indicating stronger family values.

Skin tone

This was measured using a Photovolt 577 reflectance meter used in previous research (e.g., Krieger, Sidney, & Coakley, 1998). Readings were taken from the medial aspect of the upper arm (a surface not typically exposed to sun). Three readings were averaged to give the final score. Values indicate the percentage of reflected light and can range from 0 to 10. Low values (low reflectance) indicate darker skin, while high values (high reflectance) indicate lighter skin tones.

Procedure

Sessions lasted about 30 minutes and were conducted in either Spanish or English according to participant preference. Measures were administered in the following order: (a) IAT; (b) demographic questionnaire; (c) Matrix Reasoning subtest; (d) Cultural Values Scale; (e) Acculturation Rating Scale; and (f) the Photovolt 577 reflectance meter. The participants were then given a US$10 gift card. All participants completed all measures.

Results

IAT D scores ranged from −1.50 to +1.50 and had a mean of +0.35 (SD = 0.48) indicating an overall group tendency toward in-group implicit prejudice. Within the D score range five equal divisions of 0.6 points were made (see Table 1). Out-group prejudice, defined as a D score < −0.30 (i.e., greater association of [Hispanic/pleasant + Anglo/unpleasant] than [Hispanic/unpleasant + Anglo/pleasant], was demonstrated by 22 participants (26%). In-group prejudice, defined as a D score > +0.30 (i.e., greater association of [Hispanic/unpleasant + Anglo/pleasant] than [Hispanic/pleasant + Anglo/unpleasant]), was demonstrated by 36 participants (43%).

Table 1.

Distribution of D Scores From the Implicit Association Test.

D score range	Designation	Number of participants (N = 83)
−1.50 to −0.91	Strong out-group prejudice	1
−0.90 to −0.31	Moderate out-group prejudice	21
−0.30 to +0.30	Neutral	25
+0.31 to +0.90	Moderate in-group prejudice	27
+0.91 to +1.50	Strong in-group prejudice	9

Acculturation scores ranged from −3.17 (classified as Very Mexican Oriented) to +3.05 (Very Anglicized). The group acculturation mean of −0.18 (SD = 1.26) was indicative of an overall bicultural identification. The correlation (r = −.09) between race/ethnic identification and IAT scores did not reach significance. Family value scores ranged from 1.89 to 3.9 with a group mean of 2.86 (SD = 0.45) indicating strong familial orientation. There was a significant negative correlation between the IAT and family values scores, r = −.23, p < .05, indicating that higher familial orientation was associated with less in-group prejudice. Skin tone scores ranged from 3.0 to 9.2 with a group mean of 5.97 (SD = 1.35). There was no significant association (r = −.01) between skin tone and IAT scores.

Discussion

Mexican Americans adults were found more likely to show in- than out-group implicit prejudice by a ratio of almost two to one on the Hispanic/Anglo IAT. In-group implicit prejudice is typically not found in IAT studies that have used White American college students as participants, the usual finding being a higher prevalence of out-group implicit prejudice. Higher rates of in- than out-group implicit prejudice have been found in other studies that have used lower status group members as participants (Dasgupta, 2004; Olson et al., 2009). Mexican American in-group implicit prejudice dispels the notion that race/ethnic prejudice is restricted to White Americans (Sue & Sue, 2008) and supports social cognitive theory that argues it can occur in all race/ethnicities (Duckitt, 1992).

Stronger family values were found to be significantly inversely associated with implicit race/ethnic prejudice, although the relationship was weak explaining only about 5% of the variance. Higher family values tend to be linked with positive behaviors such as lower risk of substance abuse and appear to reduce the associations involved in implicit racial prejudice.

No association was found between implicit race/ethnic prejudice and an explicit measure of acculturation, adding to the increasing number of implicit/explicit measures that do not correlate with each other (Greenwald et al., 2009). The sample studied here included participants with both strong Mexican and Anglo orientations, but overall reflected bicultural identity. Similarly, no association was found between implicit race/ethnic prejudice scores and light or darker skin tone. Hispanic Americans with darker skin tone, informally called Morenos, are widely considered to experience greater race/ethnic prejudice, but there was no indication that this impacts implicit race/ethnic prejudice scores.

The chief question concerning the interpretation of the results relates to the validity of the IAT as a measure of implicit race/ethnic prejudice. This question has plagued the IAT since its inception, even though it has been extensively used in psychological research (Dasgupta, 2010). Several researchers (e.g., De Houwer, 2001) have felt that the associations in the brain measured by the IAT have nothing to do with race/ethnic prejudice, but are instead related to the procedural features of the task. Exactly what procedural features are relevant is debated. Popa-Roch and Delmas (2010) argued that IAT results occur because reaction time is typically shorter for classifications based on self-related (in-group) characteristics although that explanation is contradicted by results, such as obtained here, that demonstrate that the IAT can generate a preponderance of scores reflecting in-group prejudice. Likewise for arguments that IAT scores reflect salience matches between categories, with out-group characteristics being more salient (i.e., standing out against the familiar) than in-group characteristics (Rothermund & Wentura, 2004).

The IAT reaction time measure has four components—Hispanic/pleasant, Anglo/unpleasant, Hispanic/unpleasant, Anglo/pleasant—and it is unclear if changes across conditions reflect more in-group favoritism (e.g., Hispanic/pleasant) rather than out-group prejudice (e.g., Anglo/unpleasant) or vice versa (Blair et al., 2010). Thus, out-group prejudice might be better conceptualized as in-group favoritism and in-group prejudice as out-group favoritism. The last, when exhibited by low status groups, has been interpreted as reflecting the tendency of individuals of all race/ethnicities to favor the dominant group as confirmation of the sociopolitical order in society (Dasgupta, 2004). A potential argument against this interpretation is that the study conducted here occurred within an enclave on the Mexican border where Hispanic Americans form the majority.

Olson et al. (2009) argued that IAT in-group prejudice in low status group members reflects extrapersonal associations learned from the negative portrayal of minorities within the mainstream media and society at large. They point out that IAT scores are the only psychological measure that demonstrates in-group prejudice among low status group members and that the IAT effect can be reduced by personalizing the test with category labels that reflect personal preferences, namely I like and I do not like in place of the standard sorting labels. This analysis is consistent with the current finding that IAT measures of implicit race/ethnic prejudice do not correlate with individual difference variables like acculturation or skin tone. Strong family values may help counteract the negative societal portrayal of Mexican Americans, thereby reducing implicit race/ethnic prejudice scores.

In summary, questions persist concerning the validity of the concept of implicit race/ethnic prejudice as measured by the IAT. A major complication to validation is that modern behavioral manifestations of explicit race/ethnic prejudice, like microaggressions, are open to ambiguous interpretation. One behavioral conception of implicit race/ethnic prejudice is that all individuals are unintentionally capable of behaviors that can be interpreted by others as reflecting race/ethnic prejudice, but whether this definition has any relationship to IAT scores is unclear. The main findings of this study were that Mexican Americans showed higher levels of in- than out-group implicit prejudice and that implicit prejudice scores were inversely significantly related to family values but not acculturation or skin tone. These results help dispel the common misconception (e.g., Popa-Roch & Delmas, 2010) that out-group implicit prejudice predominates in race/ethnic IAT studies. This misconception has arisen due to an over-reliance on samples comprised solely of undergraduate students, the majority of whom are non-Hispanic Whites, that has resulted in range restriction in the measurement of implicit race/ethnic prejudice.

Footnotes

Declaration of Conflicting Interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This work was supported by a grant to the first author from the United States Department of Education, Title V program, Promoting post baccalaureate opportunities for Hispanic Americans that sponsors research projects in science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM) fields.

Author Biographies

Christelle Fabiola Garza is a native of Monterrey, Mexico. In June, 2005 she came to the United States to pursue a college education at the University of Texas-Pan American. In May 2011 she graduated with an MA in experimental psychology, behavior analysis concentration. This article is based upon her thesis data. Since graduating she has obtained Board Certification in behavior analysis, is a senior consultant for Butterfly Effects who treat developmentally disabled children in Jacksonville, North Carolina, and is enrolled in the doctoral program at Fielding Graduate University.

Philip Gerard Gasquoine is a native of Wellington, New Zealand. He received his PhD from the neuropsychology subprogram at the City University of New York and worked in rehabilitation and private practice settings as a licensed clinician in Massachusetts, Hawaii, and Texas for over 20 years before entering academia. He is currently a professor of psychology, the graduate psychology program director, and the department chair of psychology and anthropology at the University of Texas-Pan American. He has published at length on the neuropsychological assessment of bilingual Hispanic Americans.

References

Aberson

Shoemaker

Tomolillo

(2004). Implicit bias and contact: The role of interethnic friendship. Journal of Social Psychology, 144, 335-347.

AFjustice.com. (2006). $50 million, less attorneys’ fees and costs, paid to class members in December 2005 in Abercrombie & Fitch discrimination lawsuit settlement. Retrieved from http://afjustice.com

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Reading, MA: Addison Wesley.

Blair

I. V.

Judd

C. M.

Havranek

E. P.

Steiner

J. F.

(2010). Using community data to test the discriminant validity of ethnic/racial group IATs. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 218, 36-43.

Cuellar

Arnold

Maldonado

(1995). Acculturation Rating Scale for Mexican Americans—II: A revision of the original ARSMA scale. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 17, 275-304.

Dasgupta

(2004). Implicit ingroup favoritism, outgroup favoritism, and their behavioral manifestations. Social Justice Research, 17, 143-169.

Dasgupta

(2010). Implicit measures of social cognition: Common themes and unresolved questions. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 218, 54-57.

De Houwer

(2001). A structural and process analysis of the Implicit Association Test. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 443-451.

Devine

P. G.

(1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56, 5-18.

10.

Duckitt

J. H.

(1992). Psychology and prejudice: A historical analysis and integrative framework. American Psychologist, 47, 1182-1193.

11.

Foroni

Bel-Bahar

(2010). Picture-IAT versus word-IAT: Level of stimulus representation influences on the IAT. European Journal of Social Psychology, 40, 321-337.

12.

Gasquoine

P. G.

(2008). Psychology of multicultural competence: Critical issues. Deer Park, NY: Linus.

13.

Gawronski

LeBel

Peters

(2007). What do implicit measures tell us? Scrutinizing the validity of three common assumptions. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 2, 181-193.

14.

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, 1464-1480.

15.

Greenwald

A. G.

Uhlmann

E. L.

Poehlman

T. A.

Banaji

M. R.

(2009). Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: III. Meta-analysis of predictive validity. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 97, 17-41.

16.

Heider

J. D.

Skrowronski

J. J.

(2007). Improving the predictive validity of the implicit association test. North American Journal of Psychology, 9, 53-76.

17.

Houser

Wilczenski

F. L.

Ham

(2006). Culturally relevant ethical decision making in counseling. Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE.

18.

Katz

Hass

(1988). Racial ambivalence and American value conflict: Correlational and priming studies of dual cognitive structures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 55, 893-905.

19.

Krieger

Sidney

Coakley

(1998). Racial discrimination and skin color in the CARDIA study: Implications for public health research. American Journal of Public Health, 88, 1308-1313.

20.

McConnell

A. R.

Liebold

J. M.

(2001). Relations between the Implicit Association Test, explicit racial attitudes, and discriminatory behavior. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 37, 435-442.

21.

McFarland

S. G.

Crouch

(2002). A cognitive skill confound on the Implicit Association Test. Social Cognition, 20, 483-510.

22.

Olson

M. A.

Crawford

M. T.

Devlin

(2009). Evidence for the underestimation of implicit in-group favoritism among low-status groups. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 45, 1111-1116.

23.

Popa-Roch

Delmas

(2010). Prejudice Implicit Association Test effects: The role of self-related heuristics. Zeitschrift fur Psychologie/Journal of Psychology, 218, 44-50.

24.

Rothermund

Wentura

(2004). Underlying processes in the implicit association test: Dissociating salience from associations. Journal of Experimental Psychology, General, 133, 139-165.

25.

Shelton

J. N.

Richeson

J. A.

Salvatore

Trawalter

(2005). Ironic effects of racial bias during interracial interactions. Psychological Science, 16, 397-402.

26.

Sue

D. W.

Capodilupo

C. M.

Torino

G. C.

Bucceri

J. M.

Holder

A. M. B.

Nadal

K. L.

Esquilin

(2007). Racial microaggressions in everyday life: Implications for clinical practice. American Psychologist, 62, 271-286.

27.

Sue

D. W.

Sue

(2008). Counseling the culturally diverse: Theory and practice (5th ed.). Hoboken, NJ: John Wiley.

28.

Tajfel

(1970). Experiments in intergroup discrimination. Scientific American, 223, 96-102.

29.

Uhlmann

Dasgupta

Ekgueta

Greenwald

A. G.

Swanson

(2002). Subgroup prejudice based on skin color among Hispanics in the United States and Latin America. Social Cognition, 20, 198-225.

30.

Unger

J. B.

Ritt-Olson

Teran

Huang

Hoffman

B. R.

Palmer

(2002). Cultural values and substance use in a multiethnic sample of California adolescents. Addiction Research and Theory, 10, 257-279.

31.

Wade

(1997) Race and ethnicity in Latin America. London, England: Pluto Press.

32.

Wechsler

(1999). Wechsler Abbreviated Scale of Intelligence. San Antonio, TX: Pearson.

33.

Weyant

J. M.

(2005) Implicit stereotyping of Hispanics: Development and validity of a Hispanic version of the Implicit Association Test. Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences, 27, 355-363.