Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266

DOI 10.1007/s11199-006-9078-z

ORIGINAL ARTICLE

Implicit and Explicit Occupational Gender Stereotypes

Michael J. White & Gwendolen B. White

Published online: 8 November 2006

# Springer Science + Business Media, Inc. 2006

Abstract This study was designed to compare implicit and suited for different kinds of occupations. One of the earliest
explicit occupational gender stereotypes for three occupa- empirical examinations of these occupational gender stereo-
tions (engineer, accountant, and elementary school teacher). types was conducted by Shinar (1975) who showed that
These occupations represented the end points and middle of college students thought that some occupations required
a masculine–feminine continuum of explicit occupational masculine traits, while others required feminine traits. The
gender stereotypes. Implicit stereotypes were assessed method that Shinar (1975) and others (Beggs & Doolittle,
using the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which is believed 1993; White, Kruczek, Brown, & White, 1989) used to
to minimize self-presentational biases common with ex- study occupational stereotypes is the traditional method of
plicit measures of occupational gender stereotypes. IAT measuring stereotypes of all types. Indeed, it was first used
results for the most gender stereotyped occupations, by Katz and Braly (1935) in their very early work on
engineer (masculine) and elementary school teacher (fem- national stereotypes. This approach treats stereotypes as a
inine), were comparable to explicit ratings. There was less collection of traits or attributes that the respondent
agreement with less stereotyped comparisons. Results consciously and explicitly associates with members of
indicated that accounting was implicitly perceived as more different groups. Most conceptual treatments of stereotypes,
masculine than explicit measures indicate, which calls into and all popular accounts, have emphasized these explicit
question reports of diminishing gender stereotyping for processes and their contents.
such occupations. Persons acquire stereotypes, in part, through personal
experience. But because stereotypes are part of the beliefs
Keywords Occupational gender stereotypes . Implicit and shared assumptions that societies have about different
stereotypes . Stereotypes . Implicit Association Test types of people and groups, they are also part of the
society’s collective knowledge. In order for a society to
socialize its members, these stereotypes must be explicitly,
Popular beliefs have long held that because of their
even if subtlety, taught (Stangor & Shaller, 1996). Whether
stereotyped traits and temperaments men and women are
stereotypes are individual or cultural in origin, the emphasis
on explicit beliefs is not surprising considering that the
content of stereotypes has great intrinsic interest to both the
person using the stereotype and the person targeted by it.
Even when objectively wrong, stereotypes simplify social
M. J. White (*) perception and serve as guidelines for social interaction.
Department of Counseling Psychology,
Ball State University,
It is increasingly clear that implicit processes are
Muncie, IN 47306, USA important in stereotyping. Greenwald and Banaji (1995,
e-mail: 00mjwhite@bsu.edu p. 15) have defined implicit stereotypes “as the introspec-
tively unidentified (or inaccurately identified) traces of past
G. B. White
Department of Accounting, Ball State University,
experience that mediate attributions of qualities to members
Muncie, IN 47306, USA of a social category.” Implicit stereotypes and other implicit
e-mail: gwhite@bsu.edu cognitive forms reflect the continuing influence of past
260 Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266

experience and learned associations. They are the remain- confirms the observation, the stereotype, that nursing is an
ing influence of explicit beliefs that, although consciously occupation best occupied by women (cf. Glick, Wilk, &
abandoned or rejected, continue to influence cognition and Perreault, 1995).
perception. This influence is often beyond conscious Have the explicit occupational stereotypes that Shinar
control and may be invoked or primed by briefly presented (1975) identified 30 years ago changed since her study?
stimuli (cf., Fazio, Sanbonmatsu, Powell, & Kardes, 1986). Results have been mixed. Stereotypes attached to some
Even among those persons who explicitly disavow bias occupations appear to have become more gender-neutral.
toward out-group members, appropriate priming may This is especially true of occupations where the ratio of
trigger implicit stereotyped judgments (Banaji, Hardin, & male to female practitioners has become more balanced.
Rothman, 1993). Stereotypes may thus exist and continue Other occupations, usually those with skewed sex ratios,
to bias perceptions at an implicit level, even if they are not remain gender-typed (e.g., Beggs & Doolittle, 1993; Cejka
present at an explicit level (Kunda & Spencer, 2003). & Eagly, 1999; White et al., 1989). Yet, methods used in
A strategy for describing implicit stereotypes and other these prior studies have all focused on explicit stereotypes
implicit cognitions is provided by the Implicit Association that are prone to social desirability and self-presentational
Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). The effects. Even those who consciously accept occupational
IAT assesses implicit stereotypes by measuring their gender stereotypes may hesitate to express them (cf. Yoder
underlying automatic associations with other concepts. This & Schleicher, 1996). These stereotypes are often socially
is done by first establishing the speed with which responses unacceptable and, at least in the United States, associated
can be made to a computer-presented target-concept and an with potentially illegal sex discrimination (e.g., Civil Rights
associated attribute. Although the IAT procedure will be Act of 1964, Title VII). Moreover, because implicit stereo-
explained later in greater detail, consider for now a types may persist long after they are no longer explicitly
response to the target-concept “nurse,” which has been accepted, occupational gender stereotyping may persist
paired with the attribute “female.” This is a commonly even among those who consciously disavow it. Researchers
stereotyped association; responses should be made rapidly. who use explicit stereotype measures may thus underesti-
This is because the strong association between “nurse” and mate occupational gender stereotyping.
“female” facilitates quick retrieval and cognitive process- In the present study we considered implicit occupational
ing. The IAT procedure then reverses the visual presenta- stereotypes for three occupations (i.e., engineer, accountant,
tion such that the target-concept, “nurse” is paired with the and elementary school teacher). These occupations repre-
attribute “male.” This is not the stereotypical association sent the middle and end points of a masculine–feminine
and should result in slower responses despite the respon- continuum of explicit occupational gender stereotypes
dent’s best conscious efforts. The prior implicit association identified by White et al. (1989) in their replication and
or stereotype will interfere with the respondent’s answer. extension of Shinar’s (1975) original work. In order to
Further, the strength of this effect will be influenced by the allow comparisons with implicit stereotypes, measures of
strength of the pre-existing stereotype. If the stereotype is explicit stereotypes for these occupations were also made. It
strong or well established, the effect will be larger. If it is was hypothesized that the occupation pair with the most
weak, the effect will be smaller or non-existent because pronounced difference in explicit gender stereotypes would
there is no prior association to overcome. have a larger IAT latency (i.e., a larger effect) and,
Explicit traits for occupational gender stereotyping are, accordingly, a stronger implicit stereotype than the other
by contrast, assessed using familiar Likert-type rating pairs.
scales. The most common explicit traits measured by these
scales involve whether an occupation should be considered
masculine, neutral, or feminine. Nursing, for example, has Materials and Methods
been consistently rated as a “feminine” occupation (White
et al., 1989). Essentially two explanations for these explicit Participants
stereotypes have been made. One is that certain jobs require
personality traits more likely to be found in one gender. If, A total of 156 students from two colleges within the
for example, a good nurse should be caring and women are university participated voluntarily. Most of the students
perceived as more caring than men, then it follows that (66 men, 55 women) were business majors. The rest (12
women would make better nurses than men (Spence & men, 23 women) studied education. The mean age was 21.8
Helmreich, 1978). A second explanation involves which (SD=4.7). Students reported their ethnicity as follows:
sex is more prevalent in the occupation. Despite increases Caucasian American (85.9%), African American (9.6%),
in the number of men who are nurses, most nurses are Asian American (1.3%), Native American (.6%), Hispanic
women. Because women predominate in nursing, it American (1.9%), and Other (.6%). They indicated their
Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266 261

class standing to be: freshman (3.2%), sophomore (25%), Procedure

junior (41.7%), senior (26.3%), graduate (2.6%), and other
(1.3%). Students earned extra credit, research participation An experimenter greeted participants and explained that the
points according to plans approved by their respective study examined associations between words and occupa-
course instructors. tions. Participants learned that all responses would be made
on a desktop computer. After giving their informed consent
Materials to participate, participants followed directions shown on the
computer screen. The program first assessed implicit
Implicit stereotypes Three occupations with similar educa- stereotypes, followed by explicit stereotypes, and demo-
tional requirements formed the occupation target pairs for graphic information.
the IAT (i.e., engineer, accountant, and elementary school The first step in creating the IAT scores involved having
teacher). These occupations represented the first, third, and the participants discriminate between two occupation
fifth quintiles of the distribution for gender typing reported targets (e.g., engineer—elementary school teacher) and
by White et al. (1989). Engineer was rated as a masculine between the concepts associated with them. In one version,
gender-typed occupation by these earlier respondents; “Engineer” appeared on the left side of the computer screen
elementary school teacher was feminine gender-typed. and “Elementary School Teacher” appeared on the right.
Even though accountant was in the middle or neutral Centered below the two targets was a randomly selected
quintile, ratings placed it toward the masculine range of concept that pilot testing had shown was associated with
occupations (3.39 on a 1–7 scale). one of the targets. The student’s task was to press as rapidly
Stereotyped attributes of these occupations were identi- as possible either the left (f) key if the concept was
fied in a preliminary study. Undergraduates (n=62; 13 men, associated with the left appearing target or the right (j) key
47 women) identified the five words that most quickly if the concept was associated with the right appearing
came to mind when thinking about the occupations. target. For example, if “Blueprint” appeared, the correct
Respondents were assured that there were no right or response would be the left (f) key because it is associated
wrong answers. The highest ranked five words that were with the target “Engineer.” Following the student’s correct
unique to each occupation were then used as attributes for response the next of ten trials commenced. If the response
the occupation (e.g., elementary school teacher: patience, was in error, the word “Error” flashed on the screen for
creativity, children, caring, and storytime). 400 ms after which the next trial began.
Five pairs of gender-typed names were also chosen. In a similar manner, participants discriminated between
These names were among the most common 20 names (ten the attribute male or female. In one version, “Male”
per gender) given to babies in the 1980s (Social Security appeared on the left side of the screen and “Female”
Administration, n.d.). This decade was chosen because it appeared on the right with one of ten randomly chosen
was most likely to be the decade of birth for our participants. names centered below. Assuming the first name was
Where possible, names were chosen for similarity of origin “Matthew,” the correct response would be the left (f) key.
and initial spelling (e.g., Michael—Michelle). As in step one, correct responses were followed by the next
trial; incorrect responses received an error message for
Explicit stereotypes Participants made explicit ratings of 400 ms, followed by the next trial. The third step combined
the three target occupations (engineer, accountant, and steps one and two such that a response key was shared. In
elementary school teacher) using a 7-point Likert format the current example, either the phrase “Engineer or Male”
scale (1=masculine, 4=neutral, 7=feminine). This was the appeared on the left and “Elementary School Teacher or
same scale used earlier by White et al. (1989). Female” appeared on the right. Words from the previous
two lists of concepts and attributes appeared centered
below, but combined in random order for a total of 20
Apparatus trials. Assuming that the word “Amanda” had been
randomly chosen, a correct response would require pressing
Participants made their responses on an IBM-compatible the right (j) key. So that error messages would not interfere
(Pentium III processor) desktop computer running Inquisit with responses, none were presented in this step; the next
software (Version 1.33) in a Windows 98 environment trial always followed the participant’s response.
(Draine, 2003). To avoid having the explicit stereotype scales The fourth step reversed the positional association for
serve as primes for implicit responses, the program always male and female. On this step and in this example, the word
presented the IAT first, followed by explicit stereotype scales. “Female” appeared on the left of the screen and “Male” on
Participants were told to respond as quickly as they could to the right for a total of ten trials. In contrast to step two, a
the IAT while making as few errors as possible. correct response to a masculine name such as “John” would
262 Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266

require pressing the right (j) key. Correct responses and the first between subjects variable (i.e., congruent first,
errors were treated as in step one. The fifth step was similar incongruent second or incongruent first, congruent second).
to step three, yet included the target with the reversed The three pairs of target occupations served as the second
attributes (e.g., engineer or female on the left). Once again, between subjects variable (i.e., engineer–elementary school
the individual concepts and attributes appeared in random teacher, engineer–accountant, and accountant–elementary
sequence for a total of 20 trials. As with step three, no error school teacher). No differences were expected for gender
messages were presented. stereotype congruency order. In contrast, the occupation
After participants had completed the IAT, they complet- pair having the greatest differences in gender stereotypes
ed the Likert rating scales for the three target occupations: (i.e., engineer–elementary school teacher, the first and
engineer, accountant, and elementary school teacher. Each fifth quintile) was expected to have a larger IAT value
occupation appeared individually on the screen. Participants than the other two pairs which fall much closer on the
indicated their ratings for each occupation by clicking the occupation stereotype continuum (i.e., engineer–accoun-
appropriate scale points with the computer mouse. Partic- tant, first and third quintile; accountant–elementary
ipants’ final tasks were to enter their sex, ethnicity, class school teacher, third and fifth quintile).
standing, and age when prompted by the program. The last
screen of the program contained a statement of our
appreciation for their help. The experimenter debriefed the
participants, thanked them, and gave them course credit for Results
research participation.
Stereotypes are inferred from relative response speeds to The improved scoring algorithm recommended by Greenwald,
the IAT’s tasks. The quicker responses that are anticipated Nosek, and Banaji (2003) was used to calculate D for each
to step three’s stereotypically congruent engineer–male participant’s IAT responses. D is similar to Cohen_s (1992)
pairs (and elementary school teacher–female pairs) than to effect size, d, in that the differences between IAT test steps or
step five’s stereotypically incongruent engineer–female blocks are standardized by their pooled standard deviation. All
pairs (and elementary school teacher–male pair) would responses in the two test blocks were considered for these
imply that engineer–male is more strongly associated and calculations. Trials with latencies greater than 10,000 ms and
readily retrieved than engineer–female. Responses to word participants with more than 10% of responses 300 ms or less
pairs that are not congruent with existing associations were eliminated. Block means of the remaining trial response
require more time and cognitive effort than pairs that “fit” latencies and standard deviations for the pooled test block
existing associations. latencies were calculated. These means, plus 600 ms, replaced
The IAT procedure we used resulted in 20 trials for the error latencies. Differences between block means, with error
combined tasks. Although many researchers have used larger replacement, were then divided by the pooled standard
numbers of trials (e.g., 40 trials), our decision to do so was deviation, without error replacement.
occasioned by the requirement that unique words generated The resulting D values are reported in Table 1. These
by our pilot study participants be used for each occupation. data are grouped by three target occupation comparisons
Pre-testing had showed overlap across occupations when ten (e.g., engineer vs. accountant). Each target occupation is
words were requested; hence, we requested five words from further defined by the gender presentation order of the
our participants. Greenwald et al. (1998) noted that IAT job target (e.g., male engineer vs. female accountant
magnitudes were unchanged when as few as five exemplars contrasted with female engineer vs. male accountant).
were used per category. Nosek, Greenwald, and Banaji The influence of these variables (target occupation pairs,
(2005) more recently have reported that IAT effects varied gender stereotype congruency presentation order) was
little with eight, four, or even two exemplars per category. examined in a two-way ANOVA with D serving as the
dependent variable. The main effect for target occupations
Design and Hypotheses was significant, F (2, 150)=8.552, p < .001. As anticipated,
the engineer–accountant IAT comparison was significantly
All participants responded to two pairs of target occupa- smaller (M = 0.226, SD = 0.477) than the other two
tions and gender attributes. In the case of the preceding comparisons based on Tukey’s HSD post hoc test. The
example, this would be: engineer + male & elementary engineer–elementary school teacher (M = 0.602, SD =
school teacher + female, followed by engineer + female & 0.422) and accountant–elementary school teacher compar-
elementary school teacher + male. Here, participants were isons (M = 0.494, SD = 0.526) did not differ from one
first presented with an occupation and gender pair that was another. There was no main effect for gender stereotype
congruent with gender stereotypes, followed by an incon- congruency presentation order nor was there a significant
gruent pair. Gender stereotype congruency order defined interaction effect.
Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266 263

Table 1 IAT D values for job and

occupant gender comparisons. IAT D values

Stereotyped job and occupant gender comparisons Mean SD

Traditionally masculine job vs. traditionally feminine job

Male engineer & female elementary school teacher before 0.689 0.331
Female engineer & male elementary school teacher
Female engineer & male elementary school teacher before 0.515 0.488
Male engineer & female elementary school teacher
Average 0.602 0.422
Traditionally masculine job vs. neutral job
Male engineer & female accountant before 0.267 0.441
Female engineer & male accountant
Female engineer & male accountant before 0.184 0.516
Male engineer & female accountant
Average 0.226 0.477
Neutral job vs. traditionally feminine job
Note. Scores reflect latency differ-
ences between the two sequential Male accountant & female elementary school teacher before 0.508 0.489
comparisons; see text for details on Female accountant & male elementary school teacher
calculation. Higher scores imply Female accountant & male elementary school teacher before 0.480 0.570
greater stereotype differences. IAT = Male accountant & female elementary school teacher
Implicit Association Test. Each con- Average 0.494 0.526
dition had 26 participants.

Explicit Stereotypes Ratings from the three studies for elementary school teacher
do not statistically differ (5.6, 5.5, and 5.6, respectively).
Explicit ratings for the three target occupations manifest
stereotyped perceptions and are shown in Table 2. On the Implicit and Explicit Measures
7-point rating scale (1 = masculine, 4 = neutral, 7=
feminine), mean ratings for engineer were the most Correlations among implicit and explicit measures are
masculine (2.3), accountant was rated as nearly neutral shown in Table 3. All of these correlations are based on
(3.6), and elementary school teacher was rated as the most difference scores. In the case of the implicit measures, these
feminine (5.6). It is possible to place these ratings in an are the scores originally shown in Table 1. A positive value
historical context by using means and standard deviations reflects a preference for the gender stereotypic comparison
from two other studies. Ratings were compared using z- pair, e.g., male engineer and female elementary school
tests and are also shown in Table 2. Shinar’s (1975) teacher. Explicit scores reflect the absolute value of the
participants rated engineer as 1.9 on the 7-point scale, while difference between each of the three pairs on the mascu-
participants of both White et al. (1989) and those from the linity–femininity scale. A higher score implies greater
current study rated it as approximately 2.3. Accountant was gender stereotyping for two occupations.
rated as 2.5 in 1975, 3.4 in 1989, and 3.6 in 2003. Each of Correlations among explicit scores indicate that partic-
these means is significantly different from each other. ipants who stereotyped engineers and elementary school

Table 2 Comparison of explicit occupation sex stereotype ratings for target occupations.

Source studies

Shinar (1975) White et al. (1989) Current study

Occupation Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

Engineer 1.92x 0.45f 2.35y 1.00b 2.32y 0.95e

Accountant (CPA) 2.50x 1.55f 3.39y 0.93a 3.64z 1.02e
Elementary school teacher 5.58x 0.45f 5.46x 1.08a 5.60x 1.00e

Note. Current data were collected in 2003. Shinar’s (1975) title for an occupation is in parentheses, if it differed from White et al. (1989) or the
current study. Rating scale: 1=masculine, 4=neutral, 7=feminine. Means not sharing the same superscript letter (x, y, or z) are significantly
different, z, p<.05.
a
n=177, b n=176, c n=175, d n=174, e n=156, f n=120. To avoid confusion with mean differences, these superscripts are found with standard
deviations.
264 Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266

Table 3 Correlations between explicit and implicit stereotype measures.

Explicit

Measure 1 2 3
Explicit likert scale difference scores
1. Engineer–elementary school teachera 1.00
2. Engineer–accountanta 0.46** 1.00
3. Accountant–elementary school teachera 0.76** −0.16** 1.00
Implicit IAT scores
Male engineer & female elementary school teacher vs. female engineer & male elementary school teacherb 0.16 0.03 0.17
Male engineer & female accountant vs. female engineer & male accountantb 0.17 0.28* −0.05
Male accountant & female elementary school teacher vs. female accountant & male elementary school teacherb −0.07 −0.11 0.07
a
Explicit n=156. b Implicit n=52 for each of the three separate participant groups.
**p<.01.

teachers also stereotyped accountants and elementary stereotype is not as pronounced as that for engineer, the
school teachers, 0.76, p<.01. There was a similar positive smallest IAT effect occurred between engineers and
correlation between scores on the engineer–elementary accountants. As noted earlier, the smaller the effect, the
school teacher and the engineer–accountant comparisons, smaller the stereotype difference that is implied.
0.46, p < .01. In contrast, stereotyping scores on the In contrast, the largest IAT effect is in keeping with the
engineer–accountant comparison were inversely associated explicit stereotype results: respondents were able to identify
with stereotyping scores on the accountant–elementary male engineers and female elementary school teachers more
school elementary school teacher comparison, −0.16, quickly than when the job occupants were of the other sex.
p< .01. As will be recalled, implicit scores for different These two occupations thus appear to be strongly gender
occupation comparisons were drawn from different partic- stereotyped. Further, the nature of these stereotypes is in
ipant groups. Correlations across the different IAT compar- keeping with the explicit ratings. Engineering is stereotyped
isons were accordingly not possible. Nonetheless, Table 3 as a masculine occupation and elementary school teaching
shows the correlations between each participant group’s is stereotyped as a feminine occupation. The next largest
implicit occupation comparison and the three explicit IAT effect involved accountants and elementary school
occupation pairs. Of particular interest are the three teachers. Responses to male accountants and female
correlations between the IAT and explicit measures of the elementary school teachers were much faster than when
same occupation pairs. The correlation between the IAT the other sex was paired with the occupations. As will be
engineer–elementary school teacher gender stereotype and recalled, these two effects were not significantly different
the corresponding explicit comparison was 0.16, ns. The from one another, but are different from the engineer vs.
IAT and explicit engineer–accountant correlation was 0.28, accountant effect. This suggests that engineers and accoun-
p<.01. Finally, the IAT and explicit accountant–elementary tants are more similar than are accountants and elementary
school teacher correlation was 0.07, ns. None of the other school teachers.
comparisons were significant. IAT results are similar to explicit ratings in one sense:
accountants fall between engineers and elementary school
teachers in degree of gender stereotyping. They differ,
Discussion though, in that the implicit results indicate that accountants
and engineers are more similar than explicit measures
The occupation of accounting presents an interesting would suggest. Accounting is implicitly perceived to be a
example of how assessment of implicit processes may add masculine job. This is perhaps partly due to popular
to understanding occupational gender stereotypes. Explicit portrayals of accountants as men and the perceptual
ratings for this occupation have shown it to be increasingly association of accounting with mathematics, an area
and consistently rated as a “neutral” occupation (Beggs & stereotypically associated with men.
Doolittle, 1993; White et al., 1989). Further, the number of At least as important in explaining the divergence in
women who are now accountants exceeds those who are implicit and explicit stereotypes of accountants are the
men. Given these ratings and the high percentage of women numbers of women who now practice accounting con-
accountants, one might assume that the 1970s stereotype of trasted with earlier times. When Shinar published her study
the male accountant would be gone. Implicit stereotype in 1975 only 25% of accountants were women (Beggs &
results suggest that this is not the case. Although the Doolittle, 1993), but now 59% of those engaged in
Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266 265

accounting or auditing are women (U.S. Department of expresses gender-neutral explicit stereotypes may still
Labor, 2004). The prevalence of women in accounting is a respond more positively to a person of one sex or the other
relatively new phenomenon. The continuing implicit mas- in a particular job. A persistent implicit stereotype may
culine stereotype of accounting may be, in part, due to account for some of this behavior.
perceptions associated with the earlier high numbers of Interpretation of this first application of the IAT to
male accountants (cf. Eagly & Steffen, 1984). This may occupational gender stereotypes should be tempered by the
occur in a manner suggested by Betsch, Plessner, Schwieren, nature of the participants and the occupation sample.
and Gütig (2001). In their study, cognitively busy partic- Although the respondents were very similar to Shinar’s
ipants were presented with fluctuating values of corporate (1975) sample, non-college groups (e.g., older executives)
stock. Even though participants found it difficult to recall might evidence different patterns of stereotyping. Secondly,
explicit information about the companies, they had formed a drawback of the IAT is that it is relatively time consuming
implicit evaluative attitudes as a consequence of their for respondents in comparison to an explicit rating scale.
exposure to the stock values. Stock values appear to have This influenced our decision to examine only three
been stored as summed information. To the degree that occupations. Future research may wish to use a broader
stereotypes in general and implicit stereotypes in particular range of occupations, perhaps focusing on those jobs where
represent cognitive effort saving strategies for busy per- changes in gender composition are rapidly occurring.
ceivers, new information may be incorporated into implicit
stereotypes in the summative fashion suggested by their
model. Only when enough new information has been added Acknowledgments Rachel Blalock, Beau Isley, Michiko Iwasaki,
will the “account values” of implicit stereotypes change and Vance Jackson collected data by serving as experimenters for this
study. We appreciate their generous help.
sufficiently for change in the stereotype to occur.
Although several studies have shown good reliability
and validity for the IAT (Banse, Seise, & Zerbes, 2001;
Appendix
Greenwald & Nosek, 2001), correlations with demonstrably
reliable and valid explicit measures have been only modest
Words Used as Stimuli
(Brunel, Tietje, & Greenwald, 2004; Cunningham, Preacher,
& Banaji, 2001; Kawakami & Dovidio, 2001). Our results
are similar. Why the two types of measures do not yield Engineer. Blueprints, Hardware, Mechanical, Science,
Technical
more similar results has been a matter of theoretical and
Accountant. Auditing, Business, Finance, Money, Taxes
research interest with several explanations having been
proposed. One proposal is that implicit measures reflect Elementary School Teacher. Children, Creativity, Learning,
Patience, Story Time
spontaneous stereotype processes (e.g., nonverbal behavior),
Masculine names. Andrew, James, John, Matthew, Michael
whereas explicit measures manifest deliberative processes
associated with more overt, potentially prejudicial behavior Feminine names. Amanda, Jennifer, Jessica, Melissa,
Michelle
(Dovidio, Kawakami, Johnson, Johnson, & Howard, 1997).
Others include inaccuracy in explicit self-reports due to
impression management considerations or due to errors of
introspection (Brunel et al., 2004). Another point of view is References
that implicit responses represent affective responses and
explicit responses include a larger cognitive component Banaji, M. R., Hardin, C., & Rothman, A. J. (1993). Implicit
(Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005). stereotyping in person judgment. Journal of Personality and
Implicit occupation sex stereotypes may thus provide Social Psychology, 65, 272–281.
Banse, R., Seise, J., & Zerbes, N. (2001). Implicit attitudes towards
information about what a person feels about someone
homosexuality: Reliability, validity, and controllability of the
performing a job versus what they think or what they are IAT. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle Psychologie, 48, 145–160.
willing to express. As an example of this, consider Yoder Beggs, J. M., & Doolittle, D. C. (1993). Perceptions now and then of
and Schleicher’s (1996) study where undergraduates occupational sex typing: A replication of Shinar’s 1975 study.
Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 23, 1435–1453.
socially distanced themselves and pejoratively evaluated
Betsch, T., Plessner, H., Schwieren, C., & Gütig, R. (2001). I like you
nontraditionally employed women even though these same but I don’t know why: A value-account approach to implicit
respondents did not express overt or explicit bias. As attitude formation. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin,
Greenwald and Nosek (2001) have argued, under some 27, 242–253.
Brunel, F. F., Tietje, B. C., & Greenwald, A. G. (2004). Is the implicit
circumstances implicit measures may predict behavior
association test a valid and valuable measure of implicit
better than explicit approaches. Implicit approaches may consumer social cognition? Journal of Consumer Psychology,
be especially useful in understanding why someone who 14, 385–404.
266 Sex Roles (2006) 55:259–266

Cejka, M. A., & Eagly, A. H. (1999). Gender-stereotypic images of (2005). A meta-analysis on the correlation between the Implicit
occupations correspond to the sex segregation of employment. Association Test and explicit self-report measures. Personality
Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 25, 413–423. and Social Psychology Bulletin, 31, 1369–1385.
Civil Rights Act of 1964, Pub. L. No. 88-352, 78 Stat. 241 (1964). Katz, D., & Braly, K. (1935). Racial prejudice and stereotypes.
Cohen, J. (1992). A power primer. Psychological Bulletin, 112, Journal of Abnormal and Social Psychology, 30, 175–193.
155–159. Kawakami, K., & Dovidio, J. F. (2001). The reliability of implicit
Cunningham, W. A., Preacher, K. J., & Banaji, M. R. (2001). Implicit stereotyping. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 27,
attitude measures: Consistency, stability, and convergent validity. 212–225.
Psychological Science, 121, 163–170. Kunda, Z., & Spencer, S. J. (2003). When do stereotypes come to
Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K., Johnson, C., Johnson, B., & Howard, A. mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical
(1997). On the nature of prejudice: Automatic and controlled framework for stereotype activation and application. Psycholog-
processes. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 5, 510–540. ical Bulletin, 129, 522–544.
Draine, S. (2003). Inquisit (Version 1.33) [Computer Software]. Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2005).
Seattle, Washington: Millisecond Software. Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: II.
Eagly, A. H., & Steffen, V. J. (1984). Gender stereotypes stem from Method variables and construct validity. Personality and Social
the distribution of women and men into social roles. Journal of Psychology Bulletin, 31, 166–180.
Personality and Social Psychology, 46, 735–754. Shinar, E. H. (1975). Sexual stereotypes of occupations. Journal of
Fazio, R. H., Sanbonmatsu, D. M., Powell, M. C., & Kardes, F. R. Vocational Behavior, 7, 99–111.
(1986). On the automatic activation of attitudes. Journal of Social Security Administration (n.d.). Most popular names of the
Personality and Social Psychology, 50, 229–238. 1980s. Retrieved November 30, 2002, from http://www.ssa.gov/
Glick, P., Wilk, K., & Perreault, M. (1995). Images of occupations: OACT/babynames/1999/top1000of80s.html.
Components of gender and status in occupational stereotypes. Spence, J. T., & Helmreich, R. (1978). Masculinity and femininity:
Sex Roles, 32, 565–582. Their psychological dimensions, correlates, and antecedents.
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Austin, Texas: University of Texas Press.
Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, Stangor, C., & Shaller, M. (1996). Stereotypes as individual and
102, 4–27. collective representations. In C. Macrae, C. Stangor, & M.
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Hewstone (Eds.), Stereotypes and stereotyping (pp. 3–40). New
Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The York: Guilford.
Implicit Association Test. Journal of Personality and Social U.S. Department of Labor. (2004). Women in the labor force: A
Psychology, 74, 1464–1480. databook. (Bureau of Labor Statistics Report 973). Washington,
Greenwald, A. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2001). Health of the Implicit District of Columbia: Author. Retrieved May 21, 2004, from
Association Test at age 3. Zeitschrift für Experimentelle http://www.bls.gov/cps/wlf-databook.htm.
Psychologie, 48, 85–93. White, M. J., Kruczek, T. A., Brown, M. T., & White, G. B. (1989).
Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A., & Banaji, M. R. (2003). Occupational sex stereotypes among college students. Journal of
Understanding and using the Implicit Association Test: I. An Vocational Behavior, 34, 289–298.
improved scoring algorithm. Journal of Personality and Social Yoder, J. D., & Schleicher, T. L. (1996). Undergraduates regard
Psychology, 85, 197–216. deviation from occupational gender stereotypes as costly for
Hofmann, W., Gawronski, B., Gschwendner, T., Le, H., & Schmitt, M. women. Sex Roles, 34, 171–188.
Reproduced with permission of the copyright owner. Further reproduction prohibited without permission.