Explicit Racial Prejudice Research Articles

Implicit and explicit racial prejudice among medical professionals: updated estimates from a population-based study

Prior research provides evidence of implicit and explicit anti-Black prejudice among US physicians. However, we know little about whether racialized prejudice varies among physicians and non-physician healthcare workers relative to the general population. Using ordinary least squares models and data from Harvard's Project Implicit (2007-2019), we assessed the associations between self-reported occupational status (physician, non-physician healthcare worker) and implicit (N=1,500,268) and explicit prejudice (N=1,429,677) toward Black, Arab-Muslim, Asian, and Native American populations, net of demographic characteristics. We used STATA 17 for all statistical analyses. Physicians and non-physician healthcare workers exhibited more implicit and explicit anti-Black and anti-Arab-Muslim prejudice than the general population. After controlling for demographics, these differences became non-significant for physicians but remained for non-physician healthcare workers (β=0.027 and 0.030, p<0.01). Demographic controls largely explained anti-Asian prejudice among both groups, and physicians and non-physician healthcare workers exhibited comparatively lower (β=-0.124, p<0.01) and similar levels of anti-Native implicit prejudice, respectively. Finally, white non-physician healthcare workers exhibited the highest levels of anti-Black prejudice. Demographic characteristics explained racialized prejudice among physicians, but not fully among non-physician healthcare workers. More research is needed to understand the causes and consequences of elevated levels of prejudice among non-physician healthcare workers. By acknowledging implicit and explicit prejudice as important reflections of systemic racism, this study highlights the need to understand the role of healthcare providers and systems in generating health disparities. UW-Madison Centennial Scholars Program, Society of Family Planning Research Fund, UW Center for Demography and Ecology, the County Health Rankings and Roadmaps Program and the National Institutes of Health (NIH).

Race‐based shifting standards of SES: Potential moderators and implications

AbstractWe report three studies investigating race‐based shifts in interpersonal judgments of SES, investigating potential racism‐related correlates and implications for social judgments. Study 1 examined differences in these race‐based shifts based on respondent race and SES, as well as social dominance orientation, while Study 2 investigated differences based on explicit racial prejudice and motivations to control prejudiced responses. While replicating the shifting standards effect, we observed no relation between either the demographic or prejudice measures and the shifting standards effect. Study 3 used individual differences in the tendency to make these race‐based shifts to predict discriminatory judgments in monetary expectations. Overall, the results supported individual tendencies to make race‐based shifts in judgments of another's SES, and suggest this shift is largely independent of several prominent racial prejudice constructs and predicts potentially discriminatory behaviour. The results are discussed in their implications for interracial and interclass interactions and discriminatory judgments.

An Exploration of Relationships Between Perceptual and Cognitive Racial Biases

People are often biased in how they evaluate characteristics of individuals of different races. Some of these biases are perceptual: for example, the “race-lightness effect” demonstrates that for grayscale photos at equivalent luminance values, the faces of black individuals are frequently judged to be darker than the faces of white individuals. Other biases are cognitive: the Implicit Association Test (IAT) and direct assessments of racial attitudes demonstrate that people hold both negative implicit and explicit racial prejudices. Despite extensive literature on both topics, no study has explored the relationship between perceptual and cognitive racial biases in the same individuals in a within-subjects design. In this experiment, these relationships were explored in 28 individuals using three tasks: in one task, deemed the Race-Lightness Task (RLT), participants completed a 2-interval forced-choice procedure where they were shown pairs of faces (some with European features, some with African features) and asked to judge whether the second face was lighter or darker than the first. In a second task, individuals completed the IAT to measure their associations between race and positive/negative adjectives. Lastly, subjects answered a series of questions to measure explicit attitudes about different racial groups. While results from the RLT and IAT were uncorrelated, a significant correlation was shown between the IAT and a survey question about systemic racism. These results provide preliminary support for the independence of perception and cognition for racially based tasks, and provide insight into the pervasive nature of implicit and explicit racial prejudice.

Implicit and explicit racial prejudice and stereotyping toward Black (vs. White) Americans: The prevalence and variation among genetic counselors in North America.

Research has shown that patient experiences and outcomes of genetic counseling are not equitable across racial categories, disadvantaging Black patients relative to White patients. One major factor contributing to such racial disparities might be genetic counselor racial bias. The present study examined the prevalence of and variation in racial bias toward Black (vs. White) Americans among genetic counselors in North America. This study extends the current literature of racial disparities in experiences and outcomes of genetic counseling by distinguishing prejudice (negative feelings or attitudes) and stereotyping (beliefs) at the implicit and explicit levels as well as by including both certified genetic counselors and genetic counseling trainees. Two-hundred and fifteen genetic counselors (107 genetic counselors Board-certified by the American Board of Genetic Counseling, 108 genetic counseling trainees from Accreditation Council for Genetic Counseling accredited programs) completed four measures in a random order: the Race Implicit Association Test (IAT, for implicit prejudice), feeling thermometer (for explicit prejudice), the Medical Cooperativeness IAT (for implicit stereotyping), and a self-report measure of explicit stereotypes (for explicit stereotyping). On average, genetic counselors (both certified genetic counselors and genetic counseling trainees) were slightly to moderately in favor of White Americans over Black Americans at the implicit level. They were also slightly more likely to associate "medically cooperative" stereotypes with White Americans more than Black Americans implicitly. In contrast, genetic counselors, on average, did not display either explicit prejudice or explicit negative stereotyping, which may reflect social desirability concerns among genetic counselors. However, genetic counselors as a group strongly endorsed stereotypes related to mistrust (mistrustful of the healthcare system, skeptical of genetic testing, mistrustful of genetic counselors) to be more true for Black (vs. White) Americans. Finally, our study revealed relatively large variability in each type of bias across genetic counselors. Future research should examine how such variability in each type of bias is associated with patient experiences and outcomes of genetic counseling.

Community-level explicit racial prejudice potentiates whites’ neural responses to black faces: A spatial meta-analysis

ABSTRACT We evaluated the hypothesis that neural responses to racial out-group members vary systematically based on the level of racial prejudice in the surrounding community. To do so, we conducted a spatial meta-analysis, which included a comprehensive set of studies (k = 22; N = 481). Specifically, we tested whether community-level racial prejudice moderated neural activation to Black (vs. White) faces in primarily White participants. Racial attitudes, obtained from Project Implicit, were aggregated to the county (k = 17; N = 10,743) in which each study was conducted. Multi-level kernel density analysis demonstrated that significant differences in neural activation to Black (vs. White) faces in right amygdala, dorsal anterior cingulate cortex, and dorsolateral prefrontal cortex were detected more often in communities with higher (vs. lower) levels of explicit (but not implicit) racial prejudice. These findings advance social-cognitive neuroscience by identifying aspects of macro-social contexts that may alter neural responses to out-group members.

Stereotyping, prejudice, and the role of anxiety for compensatory control

This work examines the influence of personal control and anxiety on stereotyping and prejudice. In two experiments, personal control was manipulated in an autobiographical experience task. In Experiment 1, participants then completed measures of implicit and explicit gender stereotypes. In Experiment 2, implicit and explicit racial prejudice was assessed. Anxiety was tested as a possible mediator of the relationship between personal control and stereotyping and prejudice, respectively. Low personal control was associated with greater gender stereotyping and racial prejudice in explicit measures. Anxiety mediated the relationship between personal control and stereotyping but not between personal control and prejudice. Also, ingroup identification was found to moderate some of the relations between personal control, anxiety and stereotyping and prejudice. The results provide support for stereotyping and prejudice as compensatory control mechanisms, but evidence is mixed regarding the role of anxiety in mediating the processes.

Changes in Americans' prejudices during the presidency of Donald Trump.

The presidency of Donald Trump represented a relatively unique event in modern American history, whereby a sitting US president made numerous controversial remarks about minoritized groups yet nonetheless maintained substantial public support. Trump's comments constituted a departure from the egalitarian norms that had long characterized American political discourse. Here, we examine the potential effects of Trump's rhetoric on Americans' attitudes, predicting that these high-profile norm violations may have reshaped the personal prejudices of the American people. In 13 studies including over 10,000 participants, we tested how Americans' prejudice changed following the political ascension of Donald Trump. We found that explicit racial and religious prejudice significantly increased amongst Trump's supporters, whereas individuals opposed to Trump exhibited decreases in prejudice. Further, changing social norms appear to explain these changes in prejudice. These results suggest that Trump's presidency coincided with a substantial change in the topography of prejudice in the United States.

Anti-black Attitudes Are a Threat to Health Equity in the United States.

To assess the extent to which persistent racism shapes perspectives on public health policies aimed at improving health equity in the United States. Specifically we evaluate the relationship between implicit and explicit anti-black attitudes and support for the ACA at the beginning of the Trump administration. We use bivariate statistics to examine views toward the ACA, anti-black attitudes, and demographic variables. Using logistic regression, we examine how anti-black attitudes and demographic variables relate to participants stating that the ACA has worsened the quality of health care services in the United States. Data for this study come from the American National Election Studies 2016 Time Series Study, which targets US citizens age 18 and older currently living in the United States (N = 3245). Implicit anti-black attitudes, particularly among whites, are strongly associated with negative feelings toward the ACA. A measure of explicit racial prejudice has the opposite relationship among whites. These results suggest that whites are most critical of the ACA when they hold positive attitudes toward blacks but hold negative stereotypes about blacks' work ethic and reject policies to eliminate racial inequalities. Anti-black racial attitudes are a critical barrier to enacting health policies that stand to improve health equity in the United States. Public health practitioners and policymakers should consider racism as an essential barrier to overcome in the push for greater health equity in the United States.

Infectious Disease Prevalence, Not Race Exposure, Predicts Both Implicit and Explicit Racial Prejudice Across the United States

What factors increase racial prejudice? Across the United States, increased exposure to Black Americans has been hypothesized to increase White Americans’ prejudicial attitudes toward Black Americans. Here we test an alternative explanation: People living in regions with higher infectious disease rates have a greater tendency to avoid out-groups because such avoidance reduces their perceived likelihood of contracting illnesses. Consistent with this parasite-stress hypothesis, we show that both White and Black individuals (N > 77,000) living in U.S. states in which disease rates are higher display increased implicit (automatic) and explicit (conscious) racial prejudice. These results survived the inclusion of several individual- and state-level controls previously used to explain variability in prejudice. Furthermore, showing disease-related primes to White individuals with strong germ aversion increased their explicit, but not implicit, anti-Black/pro-White prejudice. Domestic out-groups, not just foreigners, may therefore experience increased overt forms of prejudice when disease rates are high.

Empathy Diminishes Prejudice: Active Perspective-Taking, Regardless of Target and Mortality Salience, Decreases Implicit Racial Bias

Racism, and particularly the oppression of Black citizens, remains a significant problem in the United States. This manuscript reports on an experiment studying the effects of mortality salience and active perspective-taking empathy on racial bias. Specifically, social empathy was hypothesized to counteract the increased in-group preferential bias typical of those primed with mortality salience. The sample consisted of n = 111 White emerging adults affiliated with a small Midwest American university. Death anxiety and active perspective-taking were experimentally manipulated, and the dependent variables were implicit bias change scores (pre-test versus post-test on the Race-Related Implicit Association Test using White/Black faces) and explicit racial prejudice (self-report scores on the Quick Discrimination Inventory and Scale of Ethnocultural Empathy). The four experimental groups did not differ on implicit bias change scores or explicit discrimination scores—neither main effects nor interaction effects were statistically significant. However, the QDI and SEE were correlated (r = .76, p > .001), thus supporting their construct validity, and the pre-scores on the Race IAT across the whole sample were statistically significantly higher than the post-scores, with a moderate effect size (t(110) = 3.13, p = .002, eta-squared = .08). Findings appear to indicate that engaging in active perspective-taking, regardless of the race of the target and regardless of the presence of mortality salience, leads to decreased implicit racial prejudice. Empathy training in various clinical and educational settings could lead to a reduction in prejudiced attitudes, and ultimately aid in the dismantling of American racism.

The myth of objectivity: implicit racial bias and the law (Part 2)

The centrality of race to our history and the substantial racial inequalities that continue to pervade society ensure that "race" remains an extraordinarily salient and meaningful social category. Explicit racial prejudice, however, is only part of the problem. Equally important - and likely more pervasive - is the phenomenon of implicit racial prejudice: the cognitive processes whereby, despite even our best intentions, the human mind automatically classifies information in racial categories and against disfavoured social groups. Empirical research shows convincingly that these biases against socially disfavoured groups are (i) pervasive; (ii) often diverge from consciously reported attitudes and beliefs; and (iii) influence consequential behaviour towards the subjects of these biases. The existence of implicit racial prejudices poses a challenge to legal theory and practice. From the standpoint of a legal system that seeks to forbid differential treatment based upon race or other protected traits, if people are in fact treated differently, and worse, because of their race or other protected trait, then the fundamental principle of anti-discrimination has been violated. It hardly matters that the source of the differential treatment is implicit rather than conscious bias. This article investigates the relevance of this research to the law by means of an empirical account of how implicit racial bias could affect the criminal trial trajectory in the areas of policing, prosecutorial discretion and judicial decision-making. It is the author's hypothesis that this mostly American research also applies to South Africa. The empirical evidence of implicit biases in every country tested shows that people are systematically implicitly biased in favour of socially privileged groups. Even after 1994 South Africa – similar to the US – continues to be characterised by a pronounced social hierarchy in which Whites overwhelmingly have the highest social status. The author argues that the law should normatively take cognizance of this issue. After all, the mere fact that we may not be aware of, much less consciously intend, race-contingent behaviour does not magically erase the harm. The article concludes by addressing the question of the appropriate response of the law and legal role players to the problem of implicit racial bias.

The Myth of Objectivity: Implicit Racial Bias and the Law (Part 2)

The centrality of race to our history and the substantial racial inequalities that continue to pervade society ensure that "race" remains an extraordinarily salient and meaningful social category. Explicit racial prejudice, however, is only part of the problem. Equally important - and likely more pervasive - is the phenomenon of implicit racial prejudice: the cognitive processes whereby, despite even our best intentions, the human mind automatically classifies information in racial categories and against disfavoured social groups. Empirical research shows convincingly that these biases against socially disfavoured groups are (i) pervasive; (ii) often diverge from consciously reported attitudes and beliefs; and (iii) influence consequential behaviour towards the subjects of these biases. The existence of implicit racial prejudices poses a challenge to legal theory and practice. From the standpoint of a legal system that seeks to forbid differential treatment based upon race or other protected traits, if people are in fact treated differently, and worse, because of their race or other protected trait, then the fundamental principle of anti-discrimination has been violated. It hardly matters that the source of the differential treatment is implicit rather than conscious bias. This article investigates the relevance of this research to the law by means of an empirical account of how implicit racial bias could affect the criminal trial trajectory in the areas of policing, prosecutorial discretion and judicial decision-making. It is the author's hypothesis that this mostly American research also applies to South Africa. The empirical evidence of implicit biases in every country tested shows that people are systematically implicitly biased in favour of socially privileged groups. Even after 1994 South Africa – similar to the US – continues to be characterised by a pronounced social hierarchy in which Whites overwhelmingly have the highest social status. The author argues that the law should normatively take cognizance of this issue. After all, the mere fact that we may not be aware of, much less consciously intend, race-contingent behaviour does not magically erase the harm. The article concludes by addressing the question of the appropriate response of the law and legal role players to the problem of implicit racial bias.&#x0D; &#x0D;

Freedom of racist speech: Ego and expressive threats.

Do claims of "free speech" provide cover for prejudice? We investigate whether this defense of racist or hate speech serves as a justification for prejudice. In a series of 8 studies (N = 1,624), we found that explicit racial prejudice is a reliable predictor of the "free speech defense" of racist expression. Participants endorsed free speech values for singing racists songs or posting racist comments on social media; people high in prejudice endorsed free speech more than people low in prejudice (meta-analytic r = .43). This endorsement was not principled-high levels of prejudice did not predict endorsement of free speech values when identical speech was directed at coworkers or the police. Participants low in explicit racial prejudice actively avoided endorsing free speech values in racialized conditions compared to nonracial conditions, but participants high in racial prejudice increased their endorsement of free speech values in racialized conditions. Three experiments failed to find evidence that defense of racist speech by the highly prejudiced was based in self-relevant or self-protective motives. Two experiments found evidence that the free speech argument protected participants' own freedom to express their attitudes; the defense of other's racist speech seems motivated more by threats to autonomy than threats to self-regard. These studies serve as an elaboration of the Justification-Suppression Model (Crandall & Eshleman, 2003) of prejudice expression. The justification of racist speech by endorsing fundamental political values can serve to buffer racial and hate speech from normative disapproval. (PsycINFO Database Record

The Myth of Objectivity: Implicit Racial Bias and the Law (Part 1)

The centrality of race to our history and the substantial racial inequalities that continue to pervade society ensure that "race" remains an extraordinarily salient and meaningful social category. Explicit racial prejudice, however, is only part of the problem. Equally important - and likely more pervasive - is the phenomenon of implicit racial prejudice: the cognitive processes whereby, despite even our best intentions, the human mind automatically classifies information in racial categories and against disfavoured social groups. Empirical research shows convincingly that these biases against socially disfavoured groups are (i) pervasive; (ii) often diverge from consciously reported attitudes and beliefs; and (iii) influence consequential behaviour towards the subjects of these biases. The existence of implicit racial prejudices poses a challenge to legal theory and practice. From the standpoint of a legal system that seeks to forbid differential treatment based upon race or other protected traits, if people are in fact treated differently, and worse, because of their race or other protected trait, then the fundamental principle of anti-discrimination has been violated. It hardly matters that the source of the differential treatment is implicit rather than conscious bias. This article investigates the relevance of this research to the law by means of an empirical account of how implicit racial bias could affect the criminal trial trajectory in the areas of policing, prosecutorial discretion and judicial decision-making. It is the author's hypothesis that this mostly American research also applies to South Africa. The empirical evidence of implicit biases in every country tested shows that people are systematically implicitly biased in favour of socially privileged groups. Even after 1994 South Africa – similar to the US – continues to be characterised by a pronounced social hierarchy in which Whites overwhelmingly have the highest social status. The author argues that the law should normatively take cognizance of this issue. After all, the mere fact that we may not be aware of, much less consciously intend, race-contingent behaviour does not magically erase the harm. The article concludes by addressing the question of the appropriate response of the law and legal role players to the problem of implicit racial bias.&#x0D; &#x0D;

County-level racial prejudice and the black-white gap in infant health outcomes

ObjectiveBlack mothers are 60 percent more likely than white mothers to have preterm births and twice as likely to have a baby with low birth weight. We examine whether these black-white gaps in birth outcomes are larger in counties with higher levels of racial prejudice. MethodWe use data from the restricted-use natality files in the United States, which provide information on birth weight, gestation, and maternal characteristics for over 31 million births from 2002 to 2012, combined with county-level data measures of both explicit and implicit racial prejudice from Project Implicit from over a million individuals who took the Implicit Association Test during this same period. We compare counties that are one standard deviation above the mean (high prejudice) with those that are one standard deviation below the mean (low prejudice) in terms of their average level of racial prejudice. ResultsThe black-white gap in low birth weight is 14 percent larger in counties with high implicit racial prejudice compared to counties with low prejudice. The black-white gap in preterm births is 29 percent larger in the high prejudice counties. The gaps are even larger when we use explicit measures of racial prejudice with high prejudice counties having a black-white gap that is 22 percent larger for low birth weight and 36 percent larger for preterm births. These relationships do not appear to be biased by the way the prejudice sample is constructed, since the racial gap in birth outcomes is unrelated to other county-level biases such as those based on gender or sexual orientation. ConclusionThe black-white gap in United States’ birth outcomes is larger in those counties that have the highest levels of racial prejudice. This is true for both implicit and explicit racial prejudice, though the strength of the relationship is strongest for explicit racial prejudice.

The Myth of Objectivity: Implicit Racial Bias and the Law (Part 1)

The centrality of race to our history and the substantial racial inequalities that continue to pervade society ensure that "race" remains an extraordinarily salient and meaningful social category. Explicit racial prejudice, however, is only part of the problem. Equally important - and likely more pervasive - is the phenomenon of implicit racial prejudice: the cognitive processes whereby, despite even our best intentions, the human mind automatically classifies information in racial categories and against disfavoured social groups. Empirical research shows convincingly that these biases against socially disfavoured groups are (i) pervasive; (ii) often diverge from consciously reported attitudes and beliefs; and (iii) influence consequential behaviour towards the subjects of these biases. The existence of implicit racial prejudices poses a challenge to legal theory and practice. From the standpoint of a legal system that seeks to forbid differential treatment based upon race or other protected traits, if people are in fact treated differently, and worse, because of their race or other protected trait, then the fundamental principle of anti-discrimination has been violated. It hardly matters that the source of the differential treatment is implicit rather than conscious bias. This article investigates the relevance of this research to the law by means of an empirical account of how implicit racial bias could affect the criminal trial trajectory in the areas of policing, prosecutorial discretion and judicial decision-making. It is the author's hypothesis that this mostly American research also applies to South Africa. The empirical evidence of implicit biases in every country tested shows that people are systematically implicitly biased in favour of socially privileged groups. Even after 1994 South Africa – similar to the US – continues to be characterised by a pronounced social hierarchy in which Whites overwhelmingly have the highest social status. The author argues that the law should normatively take cognizance of this issue. After all, the mere fact that we may not be aware of, much less consciously intend, race-contingent behaviour does not magically erase the harm. The article concludes by addressing the question of the appropriate response of the law and legal role players to the problem of implicit racial bias.

Multisensory stimulation with other-race faces and the reduction of racial prejudice

This study investigated whether multisensory stimulation with other-race faces can reduce racial prejudice. In three experiments, the faces of Caucasian observers were stroked with a cotton bud while they watched a black face being stroked in synchrony on a computer screen. This was compared with a neutral condition, in which no tactile stimulation was administered (Experiment 1 and 2), and with a condition in which observers' faces were stroked in asynchrony with the onscreen face (Experiment 3). In all experiments, observers experienced an enfacement illusion after synchronous stimulation, whereby they reported to embody the other-race face. However, this effect did not produce concurrent changes in implicit or explicit racial prejudice. This outcome contrasts with other procedures for the reduction of self-other differences that decrease racial prejudice, such as behavioural mimicry and intergroup contact. We speculate that enfacement is less effective for such prejudice reduction because it does not encourage perspective-taking.

The paradox of racial liberation: W. E. B. Du Bois and Pan-Asianism in wartime Japan, 1931–1945

Racism in the Second World War has often been confined by Western historians to atrocities on the European continent, the Holocaust in particular. However, it is also important to note that from the very beginning the US government viewed the Asia-Pacific War as a racial conflict between Asians and the white race. Under such explicit racial prejudice and policies against the Japanese, many non-white intellectuals and activists in the United States, African-American intellectuals in particular, first showed academic interest in and then explicitly supported Japan's Pan-Asianism. This article focuses on W. E. B. Du Bois's writings on Imperial Japan in the wartime period. Du Bois portrayed white supremacy as colonialism but endorsed Japan's presence as a colonizer in East Asia and supported Japan's invasion of China in 1931. Du Bois also endorsed Japan's vision of a Pan-Asian empire during the Asia-Pacific War as he developed harsh critiques of American racism against ethnic minorities. By revisiting Du Bois's writings on Japan and Asia, this article sheds new light on the paradox of racial politics in Japan and the United States in the early 20th century.

Looking at others through implicitly or explicitly prejudiced eyes

It is well known that we utilize internalized representations (or schemas) to direct our eyes when exploring visual stimuli. Interestingly, our schemas for human faces are known to reflect systematic differences that are consistent with one's level of racial prejudice. However, whether one's level or type of racial prejudice can differentially regulate how we visually explore faces that are the target of prejudice is currently unknown. Here, White participants varying in their level of implicit or explicit prejudice viewed Black faces and White faces (with the latter serving as a control) while having their gaze behaviour recorded with an eye-tracker. The results show that, regardless of prejudice type (i.e., implicit or explicit), participants high in racial prejudice examine faces differently than those low in racial prejudice. Specifically, individuals high in explicit racial prejudice were more likely to fixate on the mouth region of Black faces when compared to individuals low in explicit prejudice, and exhibited less consistency in their scanning of faces irrespective of race. On the other hand, individuals high in implicit racial prejudice tended to focus on the region between the eyes, regardless of face race. It therefore seems that racial prejudice guides target-race specific patterns of looking behaviour, and may also contribute to general patterns of looking behaviour when visually exploring human faces.

Propranolol reduces implicit negative racial bias

BackgroundImplicit negative attitudes towards other races are important in certain kinds of prejudicial social behaviour. Emotional mechanisms are thought to be involved in mediating implicit “outgroup” bias but there is little evidence concerning the underlying neurobiology. The aim of the present study was to examine the role of noradrenergic mechanisms in the generation of implicit racial attitudes.MethodsHealthy volunteers (n = 36) of white ethnic origin, received a single oral dose of the β-adrenoceptor antagonist, propranolol (40 mg), in a randomised, double-blind, parallel group, placebo-controlled, design. Participants completed an explicit measure of prejudice and the racial implicit association test (IAT), 1–2 h after propranolol administration.ResultsRelative to placebo, propranolol significantly lowered heart rate and abolished implicit racial bias, without affecting the measure of explicit racial prejudice. Propranolol did not affect subjective mood.ConclusionsOur results indicate that β-adrenoceptors play a role in the expression of implicit racial attitudes suggesting that noradrenaline-related emotional mechanisms may mediate negative racial bias. Our findings may also have practical importance given that propranolol is a widely used drug. However, further studies will be needed to examine whether a similar effect can be demonstrated in the course of clinical treatment.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1007/s00213-012-2657-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.