News
Talk Examines Race, Gender Bias in Election
October 15, 2008 - 11:00pmProf. Jeff Rachlinski, law, and Greg Parks, law ’08, discussed the role of unconscious race and gender biases in the presidential race yesterday in Sage Chapel. Such implicit biases affect the voting process, they said.
“Although some Americans certainly are explicitly biased when it comes to race and gender, such individuals constitute a very small percentage of voters and it is our view that implicit or unconscious bias is the far bigger problem,” Rachlinski said.
Rachlinski explained that there are two types of voting — rationally and intuitively. “Whereas rational voting seems to override unconscious bias, intuitive voting is usually in line with it,” he said.
As an example of a political manifestation of unconscious bias, Parks referenced a study that determined that most white Americans find it easier to associate Hillary Clinton, or even Tony Blair, with patriotic imagery such as the American flag than to associate Barack Obama with such images.
Rachlinski pointed to a “growing body of evidence” showing that many adult Americans who perceive themselves to be egalitarian in terms of race and gender are in fact unconsciously biased.
The potential effect of such unconscious bias on voting behavior is clear.
In terms of the political spectrum, Parks said, “One thing that we know is that political conservatives tend to harbor stronger unconscious anti-black bias.”
Parks added that unconscious bias might manifest itself through changes in the relative importance of the criteria Americans use to judge the merits of a candidate. He cited the Republican emphasis on the inexperience of Obama as an example of this phenomena.
Parks also explained that unconscious bias likely played a substantial role in the Democratic primaries, during which older, less educated and poorer voters tended to be more unconsciously biased and to vote for Hillary Clinton.
“It appears that unconscious racial bias at least partially checks unconscious gender bias,” Parks said.
Parks asserted that unconscious racial and gender bias affect the polling process because whites often say that they will vote for a black candidate and then do otherwise, and many males say that they will vote for a female candidate but do not actually do so.
Rachlinski outlined the social-psychological research relevant to the 2008 presidential election.
He defined unconscious bias as “the kind of biases or habits of mind that people carry around without explicit access to.”
According to Rachlinski, “80 percent of white adults find it much easier to associate white faces with positive imagery than to associate black faces with such imagery.” He explained that in such unconsciously biased individuals, black faces seem to excite the amygdala, an area of the brain governing the fear response.
Rachlinski said that a similar response is involved in job interviews, when whites who perceive themselves as not racist treat black applicants differently by maintaining less eye contact, using more negative body language and unconsciously giving them lower ratings for “personal warmth” and other factors.
He also said that there are similar studies revealing unconscious gender bias.
When asked about the sources of unconscious bias during the question and answer session following the talk, Parks and Rachlinski explained that it probably arises largely from representations of race and gender in various forms of media.
The lecture attracted a substantial audience and seemed to be well-received.
Ileana Betancourt ’12 said, “I really enjoyed the lecture … It gave me a lot to think about in terms of the things that are running through the head of the average American voter.”
The presentation was based on a paper coauthored by Rachlinski and Parks. It was published in the Hastings Women’s Law Journal.
The talk was part of the Sage Wednesdays series, which is sponsored by the Cornell United Religious Work and the Department of Music. The Africana Studies and Research Center also sponsored this week’s lecture.

The unconscious bias is the
The unconscious bias is the fact that neither of the panelists touched on why Obama enjoys 93% support among blacks. Was Hillary Clinton the victim of unconscious bias in the Democratic primaries? A real academic would also ask this question.
Good points, but only because you failed to hear the whole story
Professors Rachlinski and (Quinetta) Roberson and I touch upon the issue of reverse "racism." The sort story is that all people harbor varying degrees of implicit anti-Black bias--30-65% of Blacks and 70-90% of Whites. Where the biases influence votes against Obama, it's the status quo. Where people resist these biases or still have them but vote in the opposite direction than one would predict given their biases, it's not the status quo. So 90+% Black support for Obama tells a very different story about their racial attitudes than support for Clinton or McCain by Whites who "may" be influenced by implicit racial bias. As for implicit gender bias, that's more complex than implicit race bias. The short story seems to be that Senator Clinton (and probably Governor Palin) experience(d) implicit gender bias--but not to the degree Senator Obama seems to have experienced implicit race bias, and it has been lees consequential to them than the implicit race bias has been to Senator Obama--despite his Democratic nomination and current lead in the polls. We touched on this briefly in our 30 minute talk.
Biases
The bias of the lecturers was much more clear then the bias of any voters. I am disappointed that the panelists, the media, society, and indeed this university are not troubled by bias of minorities. Simply giving a pass to one group while condemning another for the same behavior is blatant racism.
Further, this type of race baiting is dangerous. There is plenty about Mr. Obama which gives many citizens a reason not to vote for him. Indeed it is difficult to imagine an individual of Caucasian decent being elevated as Mr. Obama has with as thin of a resume. Setting up the expectation that if Mr. Obama is not elected, it is because of the biases of whites and not his resume, plans, or associations, runs the risk of creating an unjustified racial backlash in the event he loses.
Perhaps, we should treat Mr. Obama as we would if he was not an African American. Is it so hard to imagine that some may be troubled by his ideas and history? Spare us the lectures about our biases. Address your own first.
After all, we aren't likely to see any discussion of the biases against Senator McCain or Governor Palin. Are we?