Page 369 - Discrimination at Work The Psychological and Organizational Bases

PAETZOLD
336
These findings are controversial, however, because other work had lim­
ited success in establishing the role of conscious effort in overcoming
the use of stereotypes or prejudice, once they have been activated (e.g.,
Neuberg, 1994). Recent work even indicated that when stereotypes or prej­
udice are known to exist to the perceiver, a motive to control them may
not be successful in preventing their application. Paradoxically, trying to
remove the thoughts from one's consciousness can cause them to become
even more pervasive in one's mind (Wegner, 1994). Also, suppressing such
thoughts has been demonstrated to lead to more negative behavior directed
toward the stereotyped target (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994;
Wegner, Erber, Bowman, & Shelton, 1997). Attempts to compensate for bias
are not necessarily effective; individuals have difficulty assessing the pres­
ence and effect of their biases and so cannot correctly compensate for them
(e.g., Wegener & Petty, 1997). Feedback on whether the attempt at correc­
tion has been successful is difficult to obtain outside of the laboratory. For
example, the inherent ambiguity in subjective methods of performance
appraisal cannot accurately reveal the extent to which the evaluator may
have been influenced by bias.

Automatic Activation of Behaviors

Recent studies have considered yet a more troubling question for discrim­
ination law: Is there is an automatic perception-behavior link, so that even
consciously held attitudes and stereotypes do not mediate behavior? If
so, then discriminatory behavior can be totally outside of an individual's
control—the behavioral responses themselves would be automatically ac­
tivated. For example, perceiving that a person has dark skin may automat­
ically activate not just stereotypes, but behavior as well, behavior that is
not mediated by consciously held attitudes or stereotypes at all. Current
research provided strong evidence for this unmediated, automatic behav­
ior activation model (Bargh, Chen, & Burrows, 1996). In other words, as
Bargh, Chen, & Burrows (1996) put it, behavior "operates in the absence
of the person's intention to engage in that behavior and even when the
person is trying to avoid that behavior" (p. 232). Thus, behavioral choice
need not really be a "choice" at all.

Implications for Disparate Treatment

What are the implications for disparate treatment discrimination? Because
psychological and legal definitions of "intent" are not coincident, each area
could benefit from consideration of the other's perspective. On the legal
side, research on dual processing suggests that the disparate treatment