Читать книгу Everyday Bias - Howard J. Ross - Страница 4

Blinded by the Light of Our Bias

We allow our ignorance to prevail upon us and make us think we can survive alone, alone in patches, alone in groups, alone in races, even alone in genders. ―Maya Angelou

Ninety-nine percent of who you are is invisible and untouchable. —R. Buckminster Fuller

Did you know people in supermarkets buy more French wine when French music is playing in the background, and more German wine when the music is German? That white National Basketball Association (NBA) referees have been found to call more fouls on black players, and black referees call more fouls on white players? Or, that scientists have been found to rate potential lab technicians lower, and plan to pay them less, if the potential technicians are women? And that doctors treat patients differently when the patients are overweight, and that patients treat doctors differently when the doctors are overweight?

Most importantly, did you know that all of these behaviors, and many more, happen without people realizing they are happening, and that these behaviors are demonstrations of biases? Biases people don’t know they possess. Biases that occur without people knowing why they occur.

Over the past twenty years or so, psychologists, cognitive psychiatrists, neuroscientists, and social scientists have observed countless incidents and engaged in literally hundreds of tests that undeniably point to a human dynamic that ranges from the curious to the tragic.

Human beings are consistently, routinely, and profoundly biased.

We not only are profoundly biased but we also almost never know we are being biased. The fact that we don’t know it results in behaviors that not only include the ones described previously, but, as we’ll discuss later, have even contributed to the deaths of innocent people.

During the course of the past five decades, people throughout the world have taken up the mantle of human equality in ways that have no historical precedent. In the United States, we have seen the civil rights movement, the women’s movement, and the expansion of acceptance of and equal rights for lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBTQ) people. The public discourse has changed so dramatically during these past fifty years that in a great many social and professional circles, it had seemed that it was completely unacceptable to voice openly bigoted statements. In South Africa, apartheid (the horrific system designed to subjugate black South Africans to permit the white minority to maintain power) has been gone for more than twenty years. In Europe, countries have moved toward elevating gender equity to formal public policy status. Many of the governments of these nations are studying the many facets of multiculturalism as waves of immigrants radically change the demographics of historically homogeneous countries.

We have established laws that limit people’s biased behavior and hold them accountable for discriminatory behavior. We have hired chief diversity officers who have instituted diversity and inclusion guidelines and training programs for millions of people in schools, major corporations, small businesses, governmental agencies, not-for-profit institutions and the military to teach us to be more “tolerant” of each other. We have established special holidays to recognize and honor the contributions made by previously unheralded individuals and movements. Large-scale summits and conferences meant to address equity issues take place around the world on an almost daily basis. We have written thousands of books (including mine), made numerous movies, developed social movements, organized protest marches, and produced countless Oprah shows, all in an attempt to try to understand the problem and then try to fix it. There is no question that, at least on a conscious level, the standard we set for our behavior has changed.

And yet, as we have seen in the last few years, these changes are quite fragile. In the last few years we have seen a rise again in the visibility of white supremacist movements, spurred on by a President who has referred to them as “very nice people.” We have heard that same president tell four women of color, all members of congress, to “go home to where they came from,” even as three of them were born in this country and the fourth a naturalized citizen. We have seen brown skinned immigrants attacked and their families separated as they wait in cages for their right to asylum.

Not all of these are examples of unconscious bias, but the fact that people support them, despite the fact that they see themselves and the country as fair and equitable, is an example of the way our minds can play tricks with us. There is good reason for moving towards more inclusive behavioral standards. More than ever, people realize that creating an inclusive, culturally competent society just makes good sense. Businesses recognize the impact of getting the best workers from an increasingly diverse workforce, creating the most engaged workplace environments which allow people to perform at the highest level while serving an increasingly diverse and global customer base. Health-care providers recognize that removing bias and understanding the cultural patterns of patients not only creates greater equity, but also creates greater patient health outcomes. Educational institutions know that a diverse student body creates a better scholastic experience for their learners and that the quality of teaching improves when teachers demonstrate more inclusivity and less bias.

And yet, despite all of these efforts and all of these good intentions, there are countless examples of how our biases still dominate our everyday thinking. How is it that with all of this effort, patterns of disparity continue in virtually every area of life? Medical and dental disparity gaps between whites and people of color in the United States, especially for African American, Latino, and Native American patients, have not changed significantly over the past five decades. Incarceration rates are still dramatically higher among African Americans than among the white population, and they are significantly higher in European countries among immigrant populations of color than among the native born. The salaries of women, compared to those for men in the same jobs, are changing in such a glacially slow fashion that at the current rate, we will not achieve gender equity in the salary sphere in North America and elsewhere in the world until we are well into the next century. Suicide rates for gay teenagers remain four times higher than those for heterosexual youth.

I could go on, because the data are overwhelming, but the question we need to ask is clearly staring us in the face. How can we have good intentions, engage in so many of the right kinds of behaviors, and still not get it right? In fact, many of the results of research that has been done on bias show that biased behavior is shockingly normal. Let’s look at a few research examples that show how this behavioral tendency that exists in all of our minds shows up all around us.

Adrian North, David Hargreaves, and Jennifer McKendrick, members of the music research group in the psychology department at the University of Leicester in the United Kingdom, decided to find out whether the sound of music could influence people’s choices when shopping.^[1] They stocked the shelf of a normal supermarket with eight different bottles of wine. Four of the bottles were French and four were German. The wines were alternately displayed in different positions on the shelf, to ensure that the shelf placement would not affect the experiment. They were matched for cost and sweetness. Flags of their countries of origin were positioned near the bottles. On alternate days, French accordion music or German Bierkeller music was played as background in the store.

The results of this experiment were startling. When the French accordion music was playing, 76.9 percent of the French wine was purchased. When the German Bierkeller music was in the background, 73.3 percent of the German wine was purchased! Interestingly enough, when the forty-four shoppers involved in the experiment were questioned after their purchases, only 14 percent of them acknowledged that they noticed the music. Only one said it made any impact upon their purchases.^[2] In similar studies, researchers have found that classical music playing in the background, as opposed to Top 40 popular music, can encourage people to buy more expensive wine and spend more money in restaurants.^[3]

How fair are NBA referees? Justin Wolfers, an assistant professor of business and public policy at the Wharton School at the University of Pennsylvania, and Joseph Price, a Cornell graduate student in economics, decided to find out. They studied more than six hundred thousand observations of foul calls in games over a twelve-year period between 1991 and 2003. They worked hard to sort out a large number of non-race-related factors in the way fouls were called by referees. What did they find?

As it was, white referees called fouls at a greater rate against black players than against white players. They also found a corresponding bias in which black referees called more fouls against white players than black players, although the bias was not as strongly represented statistically as was the case with white referees and black players. The researchers claimed that the different rates at which fouls are called is large enough that the probability of a team winning is noticeably affected by the racial composition of the refereeing crew assigned to the game. Wolfers and Price also studied data from box scores. They took into account a wide variety of factors including players’ positions, individual statistics, playing time, and All-Star status. They reviewed how much time each group spent on the court, and also considered differentials relating to home and away games.

In addition, the researchers reported a statistically significant correlation with performance relative to points, rebounds, assists, and turnovers when players were performing in games where the officials were primarily of the opposite race. “Player-performance appears to deteriorate at every margin when games are officiated by a larger fraction of opposite-race referees,” Wolfers and Price noted. “Basically, it suggests that if you spray-painted one of your starters white, you’d win a few more games,” Wolfers said.

David Berri, a sports economist, professor of economics at Southern Utah University, and a past president of the North American Association of Sports Economists, was asked to review the study. “It’s not about basketball,” Berri said. “It’s about what happens in the world. This is just the nature of decision making, and what happens when you have an evaluation team that’s so different from those being evaluated. Given that your league is mostly African American, maybe you should have more African American referees—for the same reason that you don’t want mostly white police forces in primarily black neighborhoods.”^[4]

Jo Handelsman is a Howard Hughes Medical Institute professor of molecular, cellular, and developmental biology at Yale University, and the associate director for science at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy. Curious about some of the dynamics that might account for the fact that a disparity has existed for generations between the performance of men and women in the sciences, Handelsman and several colleagues designed a relatively simple experiment to find out if gender plays a role in the scientific staff hiring process. In a relatively straightforward attempt to explore the question, Handelsman reached out to science professors at three private and three public universities and asked them to evaluate a recent graduate attempting to secure a position as a laboratory manager. All of the professors were sent the same one-page candidate summary. The applicant was intentionally described as promising but not extraordinary. However, some of the applicants were named John, and some were named Jennifer. All other aspects of the applications were identical.

A total of 127 professors responded to the request. The results were both fascinating and troubling. When asked to evaluate the applicants on a scale of 1 to 7, with 7 being the highest score possible, candidates named John received an average score of 4 for perceived overall competence. “Jennifer” received a score of 3.3. When asked if they thought they were likely to hire the candidate, John was seen as the candidate not only more likely to be hired, but also the candidate the professors would be more willing to mentor.

The professors also were asked to propose a potential starting salary for the candidates. Candidates named John were thought worthy of $30,328 per year. The Jennifer applicants would get $26,508.

Perhaps most surprising of all, responses from female professors were virtually the same as those of their male counterparts!^[5]

We are sometimes led to believe that scientists are particularly rational, but in looking at these results, one might ask if scientists are more or less rational than anyone else. The results from this particular study do not seem to indicate as much.

David Miller, an associate professor of internal medicine at the Wake Forest University School of Medicine decided to explore whether medical students’ responses to patients were affected by the extent to which the students had a bias about obesity. Between 2008 and 2010, Miller and his colleagues tested 310 third-year students. The students came from twenty-five states within the United States and from twelve other countries. A total of 73 percent of the students were white and 56 percent were men.

The students were tested for their reactions to people of different weights using the Implicit Association Test (IAT), a computer-based testing system developed by researchers at Harvard University, the University of Washington, and the University of Virginia that I will discuss at greater length later in this book. The particular IAT that Miller and his colleagues used asked the students to pair images of heavier people and thinner people with negative or positive words, using a computer keyboard in a timed exercise.

The race, age, or gender of the students made no difference in their responses. According to the IAT results, 56 percent of the students tested had an unconscious weight bias that was characterized as either moderate or strong. A total of 17 percent of the students’ results demonstrated bias against people who were thin and 39 percent demonstrated bias against people who were heavy. And yet, two-thirds of the anti-fat students thought they were neutral bias, as did all of the anti-thin students.

Miller remarked in a Wake Forest University news release that “because anti-fat stigma is so prevalent and a significant barrier to the treatment of obesity, teaching medical students to recognize and mitigate this bias is crucial to improving the care for the two-thirds of American adults who are now overweight or obese.”^[6]

Ironically, researchers at the Bloomberg School of Public Health at Johns Hopkins University in Baltimore, Maryland, also studied the impact of weight on the doctor-patient relationship but from a different angle. They found that overweight patients tend to trust doctors more when they also are overweight, and that patients with normal body mass indexes tend to trust overweight doctors less.^[7] “Our findings indicate that physicians with normal BMI more frequently reported discussing weight loss with patients than did overweight or obese physicians,” said Susan Bleich, the study’s lead author and an assistant professor at the Bloomberg School’s health policy and management department. “Physicians with normal BMI also have greater confidence in their ability to provide diet and exercise counseling and perceive their weight loss advice as trustworthy when compared to overweight or obese physicians.”^[8]

Who’s judging who?

A story I once heard comes from the ageless tradition of the Sufis, the mystics of Islam. It concerns the idea of looking for truth in all of the wrong places. The story is a thirteenth-century fable about Nasreddin Hodja, Turkey’s renowned ancient trickster. The story has Nasreddin walking across a border back to his country from a neighboring one. He walked along while pulling a donkey by a rope. On the donkey’s back was a huge pile of straw. The border patrol guard, aware of Nasreddin’s reputation for tricks, was sure he must have been smuggling something and so, determined to catch the cheat, he stopped him for questioning.

“What are you smuggling?” the guard asked Nasreddin. “Nothing,” Nasreddin said. “I’m going to search you,” said the guard, and he did just that, searching Nasreddin, unpacking the huge pack of straw on the donkey, and finding nothing. Frustrated, he let Nasreddin pass.

A few days later, Nasreddin was back again with another donkey full of sticks and straw, again he was searched, and again nothing was found. For months this continued, every other week. Same Nasreddin, with a donkey and a pile of worthless material, but nothing valuable was found.

Finally, one day the completely frustrated guard spoke up to Nasreddin. “Today is my last day on this job,” said the guard. “I know that you have been smuggling something, but I have not been able to find it. It has been keeping me up at night to know what you are doing. I am leaving my job so I no longer want to get you in trouble, but please, for my peace of mind, tell me what you have been stealing.”

“Okay then,” Nasreddin said. “I have been smuggling donkeys.”

In our struggle for fairness, for equality, for inclusiveness, have we been looking in the right places or have we been looking for trouble in bundles of harmless straw?

This is an especially important question to ask at the present time, as I write this book almost twenty years since the attacks of 9-11, and more than ten years since the start of the dramatic recession of 2008. These two events created somewhat of a nationwide posttraumatic stress syndrome in our society, and have contributed to a regression in the very behaviors of bias I have discussed thus far. They have fundamentally moved us back to an environment in which leaders are once again baiting their followers by generating hate towards others. There is no real surprise here, as history has shown us time and again that economic stress creates a greater sense of threat and fear of “the other.” On a societal scale, hate crimes go up when the economy goes down. On a global scale, dictatorial and fascist regimes are almost always preceded by economic upheaval, whether it is Hitler in Germany, Mussolini in Italy, Franco in Spain, or the Taliban in Afghanistan. These kinds of movements have almost always focused on identifying an “other” who has to be controlled, dethroned, or annihilated.

Consider the anti-immigrant sentiment that has swelled in the United States and Europe during the past decade. In the United States, the quintessential “nation of immigrants,” a country in which virtually every person who is not of Native American origin comes from an immigrant heritage, anti-immigrant zeal is at its highest level in generations. In Denmark, the Netherlands, Sweden, Norway, and Germany, “nationalist” parties have risen with an all too familiar race-based fervor.

I have spent the past thirty years studying human diversity and engaging in direct interaction with hundreds of thousands of people. These sorts of reactions are not new to me. However, what has become apparent, and has been proven by research, is the pervasiveness of this phenomena of bias and most especially, how completely unconscious most of us are about it.

Over the past decade we have been given scientific tools to study this question in ways that have not been previously available. While the brain still remains a great mystery, breakthroughs in the neurological and cognitive sciences are teaching us more than we have known in all of our history of medicine. Great developments in the social sciences are teaching us more than we have ever known about human behavior, both on individual and collective bases. Science is giving us insights that lead us to conclusions that are very different from those we might imagine possible.

And that is my purpose for writing this book. After a lifetime of working on and caring about these issues, I believe these new insights into human consciousness offer us the possibility of a new leap forward. The possibility of a deeper understanding of the human condition that may hold the potential for not only solving some of our specific problems, but transforming the way we relate as a species is one I believe must be embraced with vigor.

However, I want to be clear that I am not writing this book with any sense that I know how to fix people. In fact, the more I have studied unconscious bias, the more I have found myself recognizing my own. Let me give you an example of what I mean.

A while ago I was in Jackson, Mississippi, working with the deans and faculty members at Jackson State University, one of the nation’s historically black colleges and universities. After working for two days I had to fly through Memphis, Tennessee, to LaGuardia Airport in New York to work with another client for the remainder of the week. I landed in Memphis and arrived at my gate for the last flight out that evening to New York. As I was sitting down and opening my computer to do some work, the gate attendant announced that our flight had been delayed for forty-five minutes. Almost immediately a voice bellowed from behind me in a deep Southern accent. “You talkin’ to us lady?” I turned around and there he was, a man I would best describe as Santa Claus with an attitude. Mid-sixties, white, well-fed, white beard and hair, wearing overalls and a flannel shirt. In his hand was a car magazine. Boy, did I have him pegged. I smiled to myself and then went back to work.

Forty-five minutes passed and it was time to board the plane. I had been upgraded to first class because of my airline miles and walked down the passage to my aisle seat when, lo and behold, who should be sitting at the window but “angry Santa” himself. I have to admit that I wasn’t thrilled, but we did the “airplane greeting nod” I’m sure many of you are familiar with, and sat down for the flight. As soon as we took off and were able to do so, I took out my computer and got back to work, preparing a course I would be teaching the next week at Georgetown University. My neighbor was reading his car magazine. At some point he got up to go to the restroom and when he returned he asked me, “What are you, a professor or something?” Girding myself a bit for a possible reaction, I explained what I did and that I wasn’t really a professor but was just teaching a course. He barely reacted, and we went back to our parallel activities.

This continued until we approached New York, when the pilot announced our final descent and that the time had come to put all electronics away. Experienced flyers know this is the time when “airplane chat” often takes place, because it is now safe to start a conversation knowing you won’t get stuck with somebody for two hours, someone you really might not talk to for even two minutes anywhere else. I turned toward the gentleman and asked him, “What takes you to New York?”

“I’m going to a professional meeting,” he responded.

I immediately noticed the hearing aid he had in his right ear, which I hadn’t seen before. Maybe that explained his reaction to the announcement?

“What do you do?” I asked.

“I’m a radiologist,” he replied.

So here I was, a diversity consultant with thirty years of experience, and the guy who I had pegged with all of my socioeconomic stereotypes was, in fact, a doctor. But it didn’t stop at that fact.

“Do you have a particular area of interest in radiology?” I inquired.

“Yes,” he responded, getting very animated. “We’re using active brain scans to learn about how the human brain responds to various stimuli, especially when people interact with different kinds of people.”

In other words, he was an expert in one of the very fields that I am the most interested in. If it wasn’t for my immediate stereotyping of him, and all of the biases that it brought up in me, I might have learned as much about the brain in that two-hour flight as I had learned in my research during the past year!

Gulp!

We all have this mechanism built into the way we see the world. Through the course of this book, I’ll be discussing why that is, what purpose it serves, and how the brain operates in that way. But before we get to that, let me give you a quick example. This is a story you may have heard.

A man and his son get on an airplane. The plane takes off and shortly thereafter is hit by a tremendous storm, which causes a crash landing. The father is killed instantly, but miraculously, the son is injured but survives. An ambulance rushes him from the scene to the local hospital, where he is immediately taken to the operating room. After the boy is prepped for surgery, the surgeon approaches the operating table but then stops suddenly and says, “I can’t operate on this boy—he is my son!”

Who is the surgeon?

This joke, or similar ones have been around for years and most people probably know the answer: The surgeon is the boy’s mother!

Or is that accurate? Maybe, or perhaps it is the boy’s other father, because he is the child of a gay male couple?

Our minds quickly go to the solutions that make the most sense, and often miss other possibilities that are right in front of us. In later chapters I discuss in more detail as to how and why this happens.

My intention in writing this book is not to wag the finger of self-

righteousness at you, the reader, or to act like this is something that I am immune to any more than anyone else. In fact, I am very clear that we are all, as human beings, in this boat together!

One of the challenges that we have had in dealing with patterns of unconscious bias is that we have evolved into a “good person/bad person” paradigm of looking at issues relating to differences. I discussed this at length in my first book, ReInventing Diversity: Transforming Organizational Community to Strengthen People, Purpose and Performance.^[9] The whole way we have approached the work is built upon the assumption that good people treat people equitably, and it is bad people who do all of those terrible things that we read and about in any manner of media. Often, this is especially true for people who come from a tradition of their own pain regarding “otherness.” For example, my family is of Eastern European Jewish origin. We lost dozens of family members in the Holocaust. I grew up hearing lots of talk and concern about anti-Semitism from various relatives. But I also heard questionable comments from these same relatives about people of different races. I have heard African Americans complain about racism but who then made homophobic or heterosexist comments. I have heard gays and lesbians make questionable comments about immigrants.

Do you know anybody who doesn’t have something going on with some “other” group?

In fact, what the research shows pretty definitively (and I’ll talk about some of this research in later chapters), is that most examples of bias, especially those that deferentially affect people in organizational life, are not conscious in origin at all. They are not decisions made because somebody is “out to get” somebody, but rather because all human beings have bias. Possessing bias is part and parcel of being human. And the more we think we are immune to it, the greater the likelihood that our own biases will be invisible or unconscious to us!

The challenge, of course, is that this is difficult for most of us to confront. Most people I know like to think of themselves as “good people.” We like to think that we treat everybody around us fairly, at least most of the time, and we shudder to think that we might be biased in our nature. And yet it is apparent that to be biased is almost as normal as breathing, and that our hidden fears and insecurities often get expressed in the various ways we react and respond to each other. So, as we have evolved into a greater sense of shared understanding that it is not “right” to have bias, have we gotten to the point where we can have racism without racists, sexism without sexists, and so on? And if so, how does this require us to reinvent how we deal with these issues if we are going to create organizations and societies in which all people have an equitable chance of success?

There are some people who are concerned about the movement toward a greater understanding of unconscious bias. Some fear that the focus on bias from an unconscious standpoint may provide cover for people who can easily deny their prejudice by claiming it is unconscious. R. Richard Banks and Richard Thompson Ford of Stanford Law School at Stanford University state

The better explanation for the ascendance of the unconscious bias discourse is that assertions of widespread unconscious bias are more politically palatable than parallel claims about covert bias. . . . The invocation of unconscious bias levels neither accusation nor blame, so much as it identifies a quasi-medical ailment that distorts thinking and behavior. People may be willing to acknowledge the possibility of unconscious bias within them, even as they would vigorously deny harboring conscious bias. The unconscious bias claim thus facilitates a consensus that the race problem persists. Despite its ostensible political benefits, the unconscious bias discourse is as likely to subvert as to further the cause of racial justice.^[10]

These are valid and reasonable concerns. The fact that somebody exhibits bias unconsciously does not change the impact of the behavior. Assume for the sake of argument that the referees mentioned earlier were motivated by unconscious bias as opposed to a conscious desire to help some of the players and hurt some of the others. Does it ultimately matter to the players if they foul out of a big game because of that desire? Obviously not. However, we do know that the way we perceive people’s actions affects how we feel and how we choose to interact. In a recent study, Princeton University professors Daniel L. Ames and Susan T. Fiske found that “people saw intended harms as worse than unintended harms, even though the two harms were identical” (emphasis added). Ames and Fiske went on to suggest that as a result of this phenomenon, “people may therefore focus on intentional harms to the neglect of unintentional (but equally damaging) harms.”^[11]

At the same time, we know that one of the great barriers to getting people to look at our own biases is the shame and guilt that comes when we feel like we are being made to look as if we have done something wrong, or that we are under attack. This shame and guilt causes defensiveness and reduces the chances of reaching people.

These biases make an impact upon each and every aspect of our lives. They affect the way we respond to threats. They make an impact upon the way doctors and patients interact. They affect the judgments we make about others. In organizational life, they influence how we interview people, who we hire, who we give job assignments to, who we promote, and who we’re willing to take a chance on. In fact, they make their mark upon virtually every aspect of organizational life. They also affect the way teachers educate students and how parents treat their own children. Virtually every important decision we make in life is influenced by these biases, and the more they remain in the unconscious, the less likely we are to make the best decisions we are able to make.

My purpose in writing this book is to find a way to invite people into a conversation about our own bias. To recognize that who we are and who we want to be as a society will ultimately be defined by our ability to raise our consciousness level beyond our tendency to simply react to fear. I am not calling for people to ignore unconscious bias. On the contrary, I am hoping that by understanding it we can learn to work with it and reduce its ability to dominate our decision making. I know there are psychologists who say this is almost impossible. And yet, my experience in working with hundreds of thousands of people has been such that I know we can make inroads in our abilities to be more conscious.

There are some who may say, “Just tell me what to do!” Ah, if only life were that simple. If so, then all we would have to do to lose weight would be to learn about diets, but many of us know how well that has worked (or not). Albert Einstein reportedly once said, “If I had an hour to solve a problem and my life depended on the solution, I would spend the first 55 minutes determining the proper question to ask, for once I knew the proper question, I could solve the problem in less than five minutes.” Transforming our fundamental ways of living and being in the world requires learning new information and behaviors. It also requires a shift in our mind-sets and emotions about the subject at hand. That’s what I am attempting to create in this book. We will start by looking at what bias is and why it is so essential to us as human beings. We also will explore what the neurological and cognitive sciences are teaching us about how the brain processes bias. We will look at how unconscious bias affects some of the most fundamental aspects of our lives, and the various ways it manifests itself. I will then share with you some of the resources that can help you learn about your own bias, and some of the ways that we are learning, individually and collectively, to reprogram our responses so that we can make better choices for ourselves, and our organizations and communities. By the time you reach the end of this book, you will not only have a better understanding of what you think, but of how you think!

Let’s get started.

1.

Adrian C. North, David J. Hargreaves, and Jennifer McKendrick, “In-Store Music Affects Product Choice,” Nature 390 (1997): 132. Adrian C. North, David J. Hargreaves, and Jennifer McKendrick, “The Influence of In-Store Music on Wine Selections,” Journal of Applied Psychology 84 (1999): 271–76.

2.

Charles S. Areni and David Kim, “The Influence of Background Music on Shopping Behavior: Classical Versus Top 40 Music in a Wine Store,” Advances in Consumer Research 20 (1993): 336–40.

3.

Adrian C. North, Amber Shilcock, and David J. Hargreaves, “The Effect of Musical Style on Restaurant Customer Spending,” Environment and Behavior 35 (2003): 712–18.

4.

Alan Schwartz, “Study of NBA Sees Racial Bias in Calling Fouls,” New York Times, May 2, 2007.

5.

Corinne A. Moss-Racusin, John F. Dovido, Victoria L. Brescoll, et al., “Science Faculty’s Subtle Gender Biases Favor Male Students,” Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America 109, no. 41 (2012): 16474–79.

6.

Consumer.healthday.com, Friday, May 24, 2013, “Many Medical Students have Anti-fatBias, Study Finds.”

7.

Sara N. Bleich, Wendy L. Bennett, Kimberly A. Gudzune, et al., “Impact of Physician BMI on Obesity Care and Beliefs,” Obesity 20, no. 5 (2012): 999–1005.

8.

Johns Hopkins University Bloomberg School of Public Health, “Physician’s Weight May Influence Obesity Diagnosis and Care,” news release, January 26, 2012, http://www.jhsph.edu/news/news-releases/2012/bleich-physician-weight.html.

9.

Howard J. Ross, ReInventing Diversity: Transforming Organizational Community to Strengthen People, Purpose, and Performance (Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield, 2011).

10.

Richard R. Banks and Richard Thompson Ford, “(How) Does Unconscious Bias Matter?: Law, Politics, and Racial Inequality,” Emory Law Journal 58, no. 5 (2005): 1053–1122.

11.

Daniel L. Ames and Susan T. Fiske, “Intentional Harms Are Worse, Even When They’re Not,” Psychological Science 24, no. 9 (2013): 1755.