The need for social connection is a fundamental human motive, and it is increasingly clear that feeling socially connected confers mental and physical health benefits. However, in many cultures, societal changes are leading to growing social distrust and alienation. Can feelings of social connection and positivity toward others be increased? Is it possible to self-generate these feelings? In this study, the authors used a brief loving-kindness meditation exercise to examine whether social connection could be created toward strangers in a controlled laboratory context. Compared with a closely matched control task, even just a few minutes of loving-kindness meditation increased feelings of social connection and positivity toward novel individuals on both explicit and implicit levels. These results suggest that this easily implemented technique may help to increase positive social emotions and decrease social isolation.

In 3 studies, we examined the hypothesis that the effects of stereotype usage on target judgments are moderated by causal uncertainty beliefs and related accuracy goal structures. In Study 1, we focused on the role of chronically accessible causal uncertainty beliefs as predictors of a target's level of guilt for an alleged academic misconduct offense. In Study 2, we examined the role of chronic causal uncertainty reduction goals and a manipulated accuracy goal; in Study 3, we investigated the role of primed causal uncertainty beliefs on guilt judgments. In all 3 studies, we found that activation of causal uncertainty beliefs and accuracy concerns was related to a reduced usage of stereotypes. Moreover, this reduction was not associated with participants ' levels of perceived control, depression, state affect, need for cognition, or personal need for structure. Results are discussed in terms of their implications for the model of causal uncertainty and, more generally, in terms of the motivational processes underlying stereotype usage. Within the past decade, there has been an explosion of renewed interest in goals and their effects on cognition, affect, and behavior (Gollwitzer & Bargh, 1996; Higgins & Sorrentino, 1990; Sor-rentino & Higgins, 1986, 1996). Although much of this work focused on specific goal contents and their affective and behav-

This project benefited from the assistance and support of several organizations and many people. First, we gratefully acknowledge the financial assistance of the Dispute Resolution Research Center at the Kellogg Graduate School of Management at Northwestern University. We also thank Molly Moran at Sotheby’s for her thoughtful, continual assistance. Michael Jensen provided both comments and help with the data analysis. Finally, we thank Don Moore, Madan Pillutla, and Alvin Roth for their constructive comments on earlier versions of this manuscript. 2 Milked for All Their Worth: Competitive Arousal and Escalation in the Chicago Cow Auctions In the summer and fall of 1999, the city of Chicago sponsored a public art exhibit of over 300 life-sized fiberglass cows. In November, 140 of the cows were put up for auction; 75 on the Internet and 65 at a live, in-person auction. Collectively, they sold for $3,487,252, almost 7 times initial estimates. This paper attempts to explain this phenomenon by using the theoretical lenses of three models- rational choice, escalation of commitment, and a desire to win in a state of competitive arousal. Our analysis of the bids in the on-line auction suggests that competitive arousal may best explain behavior in the

Active judges are likely to face numerous work-related experiences (e.g., traumatic cases) that affect performance of their occupational duties. Three occupational experiences (secondary traumatic stress [STS], safety concerns, and burnout) are outlined and applied to the judiciary. Results from nine case study interviews conducted in a single jurisdiction among a homogeneous cohort suggest that judges are at risk of having these experiences. Although no judge demonstrated extreme symptoms, all had low levels of symptoms associated with STS, safety concerns, and/or burnout. Several recommendations are proposed to prevent or minimize these occupational experiences. Recognizing and addressing the problem are essential for the protection of our nation's judges and the integrity of our judicial system.

When an organization is described as being “diverse, ” what exactly does this mean? At a very basic level, this probably refers to the fact that the organization in question employs a noticeable number of traditionally underrepresented minori-ties. But beyond this basic (and imprecise) statement, little else is known about the factors that influence perceptions of organizational diversity. Even though past research has uncovered evidence of the potentially beneficial aspects of maintaining diverse organizational environments (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Kochan et al., 2003; Phillips & Lloyd, 2006), the question of what characteristics lay perceivers pay attention to in determining whether an organization can be considered diverse has remained largely unexplored. Previous research has explored the psychological conse-quences of exposing individuals to interethnic ideologies

When an organization is described as being “diverse, ” what exactly does this mean? At a very basic level, this probably refers to the fact that the organization in question employs a noticeable number of traditionally underrepresented minori-ties. But beyond this basic (and imprecise) statement, little else is known about the factors that influence perceptions of organizational diversity. Even though past research has uncovered evidence of the potentially beneficial aspects of maintaining diverse organizational environments (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Kochan et al., 2003; Phillips & Lloyd, 2006), the question of what characteristics lay perceivers pay attention to in determining whether an organization can be considered diverse has remained largely unexplored. Previous research has explored the psychological conse-quences of exposing individuals to interethnic ideologies

When an organization is described as being “diverse, ” what exactly does this mean? At a very basic level, this probably refers to the fact that the organization in question employs a noticeable number of traditionally underrepresented minori-ties. But beyond this basic (and imprecise) statement, little else is known about the factors that influence perceptions of organizational diversity. Even though past research has uncovered evidence of the potentially beneficial aspects of maintaining diverse organizational environments (Gurin, Nagda, & Lopez, 2004; Kochan et al., 2003; Phillips & Lloyd, 2006), the question of what characteristics lay perceivers pay attention to in determining whether an organization can be considered diverse has remained largely unexplored. Previous research has explored the psychological conse-quences of exposing individuals to interethnic ideologies

Why do people sometimes view others as objects rather than complete persons? We propose that when people desire successful interactions with others, yet feel uncertain about their ability to navigate others' subjectivity, they downplay others' subjective attributes, focusing instead on their concrete attributes. This account suggests that objectification represents a response to uncertainty about one's ability to successfully interact with others distinct from: instrumentalizing others in response to power; dehumanizing others in response to threat; and simplifying others in response to general uncertainty. Supporting this account: When uncertainty about navigating women's subjectivity was salient, men showed increased sexual objectification to the extent that they desired successful interactions with women (Study 1) and were primed to view such interactions as self-esteem relevant (Study 2). In a workplace scenario, participants made uncertain about their managerial ability felt less confident about their ability to navigate employees' subjectivity and, consequently, role-objectified employees (Study 3). © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved. Introduction Objectification refers to the tendency to think about and treat an individual more like an object or a commodity than a person. In the sexual realm, objectification occurs whenever people (typically women) are reduced to or treated as a body, body parts, or sexual functions, independent of the characteristics of their personality and experience Being objectified has negative consequences for the individual. For example, a large body of research shows that sexually objectifying experiences (e.g., having body parts leered at, encountering media that spotlights women's bodies) coax women into taking an external vantage point on their physical appearance, and this state of selfobjectification generates shame, usurps mental energy, and contributes to depression, sexual dysfunction, and eating disorders Given these consequences, a scientific understanding of the factors that cause perceivers to objectify is critical. Relevant insights are provided by objectification theory, theoretical accounts of the psychology of social power, and perspectives on threat avoidance. In this article we introduce a novel theory that complements prior theorizing by delineating an unexamined mechanism underlying objectification. In brief, we posit that when people seek personal value from positive relations with others, but feel uncertain about their ability to navigate others' subjectivity, they may compensate for that uncertainty by downplaying other people's subjective attributes. We articulate this theory and specify how it builds on, but goes substantially beyond, prior theorizing. We use key points of theoretical contrast to derive novel hypotheses regarding antecedents, moderators, and mediators of objectification, and we test those hypotheses in three studies. Prior theory and research on the causes of objectification The majority of social psychological and sociological research on objectification examines women's self-objectification from the perspective of objectification theory Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect Journal of Experimental Social Psychology j o u r n a l h o m e p a g e : w w w . e l s e v i e r . c o m / l o c a t e / j e s p Author's personal copy On this account, men objectify women for the same reason that women self-objectify: they are socialized into a cultural milieu that values women primarily for their physical appearance and teaches them that it is normative to view women's sexual parts or functions as capable of representing women. This account is supported by correlational and experimental evidence that men's objectification of women is positively associated with their endorsement of cultural beauty standards and their exposure to sexualizing media and sexualized female targets The role of instrumentality For objectification theory, the cultural milieu that teaches men to objectify women is not an arbitrary set of values and norms; rather, it stems from a broader sexist ideology that entitles men to view women as objects that they can use for their personal gain, particularly for the purposes of attaining sexual pleasure, or maintaining their advantaged social and economic status Research into the psychology of power brings into stronger relief the link between instrumentality and objectification, both within and outside the sexual realm. Previous research has established that feelings of power motivate personal goal pursuit Threat accounts Whereas instrumentality accounts explain objectification as the result of empowered individuals viewing others as means to achieving personal goals, other theoretical accounts posit that objectification serves to protect the perceiver against threatening cognitions. One such account holds that objectification is a means by which people derogate disliked or otherwise threatening targets. By denying that targets possess the psychological characteristics that would make them fully human, such as a unique point of view, perceivers attempt to downgrade targets' moral worth. Consistent with this account, men who are high, but not low, in hostile sexism show decreased activation in the medial prefrontal cortex when thinking about sexualized female targets, but not non-sexualized female targets or male targets This account highlights the affinity between objectification and infrahumanization -denying individuals or groups psychological characteristics thought to constitute the uniquely "human essence" A second threat account integrates objectification theory and terror management theory to posit that men's objectification of women stems from men's deeply rooted concerns with mortality Although unique, these prior threat accounts share the notion that objectification represents a defensive response to threat. By reducing or eliminating targets' subjectivity and thus humanity, perceivers attempt to minimize the threat that targets pose to their perceived superiority, cultural worldview, or buffer against mortality concerns. Subjectivity uncertainty theory We introduce a novel theory of the causes of objectification meant to complement, rather than replace, the lines of theorizing just reviewed. Subjectivity uncertainty theory (SUT) synthesizes and formalizes Becker's (1964) and SUT's second proposition is that effectively navigating others' subjectivity is a difficult matter because others' mental states and personality characteristics are not directly observable (difficult to know), they are constantly shifting and occasionally contradictory (difficult to predict), and they are not always influenced by one's actions in desired ways (difficult to control). Focusing on these difficulties can increase perceivers' subjectivity uncertainty -that is, uncertainty about their ability to effectively navigate others' subjectivity and, ultimately, their ability to relate to others in ways that affirm their personal value. SUT posits that objectification can serve as a strategy for compensating for subjectivity uncertainty. More specifically, perceivers can avoid the threat of subjectivity uncertainty by downplaying the subjective attributes perceived as difficult to navigate and focusing instead on others' concrete attributes that are perceived as relatively easier to navigate. SUT stands to make three significant contributions to objectification theory and research. First, SUT offers a provocative explanation of objectification. Whereas it would seem that focusing perceivers on targets' subjectivity should make those targets difficult if not impossible to reduce to concrete attributes, SUT yields the hypothesis that this focus can arouse subjectivity uncertainty and thus trigger compensatory downplaying of targets' subjective attributes. 1 Second, because SUT posits a general mechanism underlying objectification, it stands to provide a unified explanation of objectification as 1 This perspective suggests another counterintuitive possibility: Perceivers' desire to positively relate to others can, ironically, lead them to think about and treat others in a way that likely harms their interpersonal relations. We revisit this latter possibility in the General Discussion; for now we focus on testing whether perceivers use objectification to compensate for subjectivity uncertainty. Author's personal copy it manifests variously across different interpersonal contexts. With regard to causal antecedents, SUT allows us to predict that perceivers will objectify targets in any context where they desire to successfully relate to targets yet feel uncertainty about their ability to navigate targets' subjectivity. With regard to the type of objectification, SUT allows us to predict that perceivers under subjectivity uncertainty will focus on a range of concrete attributes seen as representing targets, including often-studied appearance-related attributes, but also occupational roles or quantitative indices of value (e.g., IQ, salary, number of scholarly publications). To illustrate SUT's broad explanatory scope, we designed the current studies to test SUT-derived hypotheses in the context of examining both sexual objectification (Studies 1 and 2) and workplace role objectification (Study 3). A third advantage of SUT is that it yields novel hypotheses regarding the antecedents, moderators, and mediators of objectification that could not be easily derived from prior theorizing. To illustrate SUT's generativity, in the next section we compare SUT to prior theoretical accounts, using key points of contrast to formulate novel hypotheses. Comparing SUT with instrumentality accounts SUT stands apart from objectification theory because it posits a general mechanism underlying objectification both within and outside the sexual realm, and because it holds that objectification is not exclusively the result of men's indoctrination into a patriarchal worldview that fosters instrumental conceptions of women. In this way, SUT can be used to predict when both men and women will objectify targets independent of the targets' sex or the salience of sexualizing media and other agents of socialization. SUT adds further dimensions to the posited role of instrumentality in objectification. SUT shares with objectification theory and power accounts the broad notion that perceivers often objectify others in order to facilitate the achievement of some desired goal. However, SUT uniquely emphasizes perceivers' motivation to secure personal value through effective interpersonal interaction, a goal that requires navigating others' subjective states. In this way, SUT uniquely explains why people can be threatened by uncertainty about their ability to navigate other's subjectivity and respond with efforts to reduce that uncertainty. On the basis of SUT, then, we hypothesize that increasing subjectivity uncertainty will cause perceivers to downplay targets' subjective attributes. Prior instrumentality accounts would likely hypothesize the opposite effect: when perceivers are focused on uncertainties surrounding goal pursuit (rather than feeling empowered to pursue their goals), they will feel less liberated to treat others as mere tools for their personal gain. Comparing SUT with threat accounts SUT and the threat accounts discussed above share the broad notion that objectification can serve as a strategy for alleviating a psychological threat by denying targets' subjectivity. However, SUT posits a unique threat -namely, felt uncertainty about one's own efficacy -and therefore uniquely explains why objectification may occur in the absence of negative attitudes toward targets or the salience of mortality. Based on this contrast, we predicted that objectification in response to subjectivity uncertainty would not be associated with a negative global attitude toward targets, and that this effect would remain statistically significant when controlling for any negative global attitude. We tested this prediction in all the current studies. Our account further distinguishes objectification as a hostile or derogatory response to targets and objectification as a compensatory response to subjectivity uncertainty. Specifically, SUT yields the hypothesis that the more people desire positive relations with others, yet feel uncertain about their ability to effectively understand and control people at a subjective level, the more likely they are to compensate for that uncertainty by downplaying targets' subjective attributes and focusing instead on concrete attributes. We assessed this hypothesis in two studies designed to test whether men's desire for positive relations with women moderates the effect of subjectivity uncertainty on men's tendency to view women in terms of the characteristics of their physical appearance rather than their subjective attributes. In Study 1 we predicted that when men were primed with uncertainty (versus certainty) about how to interact successfully with women, their dispositional motivation to seek positive relations with women would predict their objectification of women. We also predicted that this effect would be driven by men's motivation to relate positively to women in particular, and not by their desire to relate positively to other people more generally. To test this, we measured men's motivation to relate positively to other men, and we tested whether it predicted objectification of women when uncertainty about successfully interacting with women was salient (we predicted no such interaction). Study 2 builds on Study 1 by experimentally manipulating men's perceptions of the relevance of positive relations with women to their self-esteem. We predicted that focusing men on the role of women's subjectivity in heterosexual relationships would increase men's objectification of women, particularly when men were primed with the relevance of maintaining positive relations with women for their self-esteem. This prediction would not easily follow from accounts that view objectification as a hostile or derogatory response to women. Comparing SUT with uncertainty management theory SUT complements not only prior theorizing on objectification, but also work on the psychology of uncertainty. According to uncertainty management theory We will not address this issue by attempting to draw a firm conceptual distinction between the outcomes of objectification and preference for simple representations of others. We assume that most instances of simplification, including stereotyping, will resemble objectification insofar as perceivers focus on easily observable characteristics of targets more so than on attributes of their private, dynamic, and idiosyncratic subjectivity. Likewise, in most cases objectified targets are perceived in simpler (versus more complex) terms. Instead, we compare these theoretical perspectives at the level of antecedents, moderators, and mediating variables. First, as discussed earlier, SUT yields the hypothesis that priming subjectivity uncertainty will increase target objectification particularly when perceivers desire to positively relate with targets. This hypothesis does not follow from UMT. Therefore, if this hypothesis is supported by the results of Studies 1 and 2, we will have increased confidence that the mechanism proposed by SUT to underlie objectification is unique from the uncertainty avoidance mechanism proposed by UMT. Author's personal copy Furthermore, SUT and UMT differ in their portrayal of uncertainty. UMT offers a very general portrayal according to which uncertainty about virtually any self-relevant event is aversive and elicits compensatory efforts to bolster certainty, even in unrelated domains. Studies inspired by this perspective show, in fact, that arousing uncertainty about the self increases conviction on unrelated social issues To assess the merits of this alternative explanation, current Study 1 tests the hypothesis that men will show increased objectification of women particularly in response to salient uncertainty about navigating women's subjectivity, and not when primed with uncertainty about navigating other people's subjectivity in general. To test this hypothesis, we included a comparison condition in which men were primed with the difficulties of interacting with other men at a subjective level. We did not expect men in this condition to show increased objectification of women. Study 2 provides an additional test of the alternative possibility that our hypothesized effects simply represent a response to uncertainty about others in general. We included in this study a comparison condition in which men were primed to think about how women's subjectivity influences their relations with other women. If objectification simply reflects a general strategy for simplifying representations of targets -that is, in the absence of any motive to positively relate to targets -then men in this condition should show increased objectification. If, however, our present account is correct in positing that men's objectification of women is specifically in response to the perception that women's subjectivity influences their (men's) ability to positively relate to women, then we should observe no increase in objectification among men primed with uncertainty surrounding female-female relations. If the results of Studies 1 and 2 support predictions, they would suggest that objectification does not simply reflect a general strategy for minimizing uncertainty, but rather serves as a means of adjusting representations of targets specifically when those targets' subjectivity is perceived as difficult to manage and as undermining one's own prospect of positively relating to those targets. SUT and UMT can be further distinguished at the level of mediating variables. Based on UMT, we would predict that priming uncertainty about important aspects of the self will heighten people's concern about their ability to effectively navigate all aspects of the relevant performance, and this generalized concern will predict objectification, presumably as a means of simplifying target representations. In contrast, SUT yields more specific predictions: priming uncertainty about one's ability to positively relate to targets will heighten people's concern specifically with their ability to effectively navigate targets' subjectivity, and not with their ability to navigate subjectivity-unrelated aspects of the performance; furthermore, this concern with navigating subjectivity should mediate the effect of priming ability uncertainty on objectification, whereas concern with one's ability to handle subjectivity-unrelated aspects of the performance should not play a mediating role. We tested these predictions in Study 3. We manipulated participants' uncertainty that, as managers in a workplace, they would be able to positively relate with their employees. We then measured their concern that they will be able to effectively navigate their employees' subjective attributes as well as subjectivity-unrelated (albeit no less complex) aspects of the manager position. Finally, we measured the extent to which participants preferred to view employees only in terms of their role in the workplace. If priming uncertainty about successfully interacting with others threatens perceived personal efficacy in general, then both subjectivity-related and subjectivity-unrelated concerns should mediate the effect of priming ability uncertainty on role objectification. If, however, participants' uncertainty about their ability to successfully interact with others increases role objectification indirectly by heightening concern specifically with one's ability to navigate others' subjectivity, as SUT posits, then only that concern should play a mediating role. Study 1 Study 1 provides an initial test of our hypothesis that priming subjectivity uncertainty -again, uncertainty about one's ability to navigate others' subjectivity -increases objectification. The context for this study is men's objectification of women in terms of their physical appearance. Study 1 was also designed to provide evidence that the mechanism proposed by SUT to underlie objectification is psychologically distinct from the mechanisms proposed by other theoretical accounts. As discussed, prior threat accounts posit that objectification is a derogatory response to threatening targets. SUT posits, in contrast, then when people desire positive interpersonal interactions, yet are uncertain about how to navigate others' subjectivity, they compensate by downplaying others' subjective attributes. We therefore predicted that when men are primed with subjectivity uncertainty (versus certainty) about their relations with women, their dispositional desire to positively relate to women would predict their objectification of women. This prediction does not follow from prior threat accounts. To assess the alternative possibility that this interaction is due to men's desire for positive interpersonal relations in general, rather than their desire to positively relate to the targets of subjectivity uncertainty in particular, as we hypothesize, we measured men's desire to positively relate to other men and tested whether it moderated the effect of priming subjectivity uncertainty on objectification of women (we expected it would not). Comparing SUT with prior threat accounts yields distinct predictions at the level of outcome variables as well. If, as SUT claims, objectification in response to subjectivity uncertainty can occur independent of derogatory responses to threatening targets, then our predictor variables should not lead men to hold a more negative global attitude toward women. Study 1 also tests diverging predictions based on the comparison of SUT to UMT. Based on SUT we hypothesize that objectification occurs specifically in response to subjectivity uncertainty, whereas UMT yields the hypothesis that the salience of uncertainty in general prompts perceivers to simplify their representations of targets. Therefore, we included a condition in which men were primed with uncertainty about their ability to navigate men's subjectivity. If the objectification of female targets in response to primed subjectivity uncertainty is merely a generalized reaction to uncertainty salience, then we would expect men to objectify women to the same extent in response to primed subjectivity uncertainty with relation to both women and other men. However, if our analysis is correct in characterizing men's objectification of women as a response to uncertainty about their ability to positively relate to women, then priming subjectivity uncertainty with relation to other men should not increase objectification of women. Our approach to measuring objectification warrants separate mention. In the objectification theory literature, women's self-objectification and men's objectification of women are often measured with versions of Noll and Fredrickson's (1998) Self-Objectification Questionnaire (SOQ), which assesses the prioritizing of certain physical attributes (appearance-related attributes; e.g., "sex appeal") over others (competence-related attributes; e.g., "physical coordination"). The design of this measure is broadly consistent with our conception of objectification as a relative prioritization of physical, sexual characteristics. However, based on our analysis we sought to measure more specifically men's tendency to downplay women's subjective attributes. The SOQ is 1237 M.J. Landau et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 1234-1246 Author's personal copy suboptimal for this purpose because it assesses the perceived relative importance of different attributes that are all ultimately physical. Therefore, as described in more detail in the Method section, we modified the SOQ to assess men's ranking of women's appearance-related attributes and their subjective attributes. Method A total of 57 heterosexual men enrolled in undergraduate psychology courses participated as partial fulfillment of a course requirement. Of these, 4 failed to complete all measures. The data from these participants were excluded from our analysis, leaving a final sample of 53. Participants were randomly assigned to one of three conditions: uncertaintywith-women vs. certainty-with-women vs. uncertainty-with-men. Dispositional motivation to positively relate to women and men constituted our moderating variables of interest, and objectification and liking of women served as our dependent measures of interest. Participants completed an online survey distributed through Qualtrics, a service for online data collection. As a cover story, the materials were described as a survey of people's perceptions of gender dynamics in social life. Motivation to positively relate to women and men

# The Author(s) 2011. This article is published with open access at Springerlink.com Abstract Studies have shown that survival processing leads to superior memorability. The aim of the present study was to examine whether this survival recall advantage might result from stereotype activation. To test this hypothesis, we conducted a pilot study and two experiments in which participants were primed with stereotypes (Experiment 1, professor and elderly person; Experiment 2, survivalstereotype). In Experiment 1, 120 undergraduates were randomly assigned to a survival, professor stereotype, elderly person stereotype, or moving scenario and rated words for their relevance to the imagined scenario. In Experiment 2, 75 undergraduates were given a survival, survival-stereotype (based on our pilot study), or moving scenario. Both experiments showed that survival processing leads to a greater recall advantage over the stereotype groups and control group. These data indicate that the mere activation of stereotypes cannot explain the survival recall advantage.

Compared to the science on the existence of implicit bias and its potential influence on behavior, the science on ways to mitigate implicit bias is relatively young and often does not address specific applied contexts such as judicial decision making. Yet, it is important for strategies to be concrete and applicable to an individual’s work to be effective; instructions to simply avoid biased outcomes or respond in an egalitarian manner are too vague to be helpful (Dasgupta, 2009). To address this gap in concrete strategies applicable to court audiences, the authors reviewed the science on general strategies to address implicit bias and considered their potential relevance for judges and court professionals. They also convened a small group discussion with judges and judicial educators (referred to as the Judicial Focus Group) to discuss potential strategies. This document summarizes the results of these efforts. Part 1 identifies and describes conditions that exacerbate the effects of implicit bias on decisions and actions. Part 2 identifies and describes seven general research-based strategies that may help attenuate implicit bias or mitigate the influence of implicit bias on decisions and actions. Part 2 provides a brief summary of empirical findings that support the seven strategies and offers concrete suggestions, both research-based and extrapolated from existing research, to implement each strategy. 1 Some of the suggestions in Part 2 focus on individual actions to minimize the influence of implicit bias, and others focus on organizational efforts to (a) eliminate situational or systemic factors that may engender implicit bias and (b) promote a more egalitarian court culture. The authors provide the tables as a resource for addressing implicit bias with the understanding that the information should be reviewed and revised as new research and lessons from the field expand current knowledge. *Preparation of this project brief was funded by the Open Society Institute, the State Justice