Socially c i ical
decisions owa ds
low s a us g oups:
he ole o me i oc acy
Rui Cos a-Lopes
Ana Filipa Madei a
Ma iana Pi es de Mi anda
Wilson Mo ei a
6.
138 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
We make i ial decisions e e yday bu , e e y once in a while, we ace
decisions ha ha e a deep impac on o he s, as hey may imply se ious ha m
o he unequal dis ibu ion o ele an ma e ial o symbolic esou ces. These
socially c i ical decisions (scd) cons i u e he co e o his chap e . I s main
goal is o desc ibe he li e a u e on hese scd and p esen empi ical esea ch
es ing how he con ex ual salience o a me i oc a ic no m impac s on hese
decisions owa ds low s a us g oup membe s.
The i s pa o his chap e will desc ibe he exis ing esea ch on scd wi hin
asymme ic social ela ions ha has mos ly ocused on di e en examples,
such as “shoo s. no -shoo ” police decisions as a unc ion o di e en e hnic
a ge g oups, medical decisions, mo al dilemmas and legal decisions. A
consis en esul ac oss hese di e en decisional con ex s ( hough wi h some
ca ea s) indica es ha low s a us g oup membe s (e. g. blacks, gypsies, he
homeless) a e a ge ed wi h mo e un a o able decisions, he e o e sugges ing
an inequali y in ea men ha may be unde mining he ull scale inclusion o
hese g oup membe s.
We desc ibe how his esea ch has been mo e ocused on showing his
g oup-based disc imina ion in scd han in explaining i . Impo an ly, a
signi ican ac o ha has been consis en ly shown o impac on g oup-based
dis inc ions has been neglec ed by scd esea ch: he salience o a me i oc a ic
no m. Al hough seen as an impo an social no m ha egula es socie y,
desc ip i e me i oc acy – i. e. he belie ha people a e ewa ded based on
hei e o s – is none heless associa ed wi h in ole ance and dislike o low
s a us g oup membe s and may he e o e be logically associa ed wi h mo e
un a ou able decisions owa ds low s a us g oups. This lay explana ion o
disc imina ion may legi imise he main enance o inequali y and limi ac ions
owa ds inclusion. In he second pa o his chap e , we will p esen he
a ionale o such hypo hesis and p esen ou own esea ch de eloped a ound
his idea. We end he chap e wi h a succinc discussion on how his bias in
scd hinde s a ull in eg a ion o low s a us g oup membe s in socie y.
shoo s. no shoo decisions owa ds
low s a us g oup membe s
Police shoo ings a e a pa adigma ic example o a si ua ion whe e indi iduals
a e o ced o make socially c i ical decisions ha may ca y e y se ious
socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 139
consequences. Police o ice s ace a challenging si ua ion when a i ing a a
dange ous scene: he e may be se e al indi iduals, wi h some o hem being
a med and o he s no . In a ac ion o a second, he police o ice needs o
make a shoo s. no shoo decision. No o shoo an a med indi idual may
esul in he police o ice ge ing sho , shoo ing an una med indi idual may
lead o a agic loss o innocen li es. Mo eo e , hese w ong decisions may
lead o majo social un es .
In New Yo k, 1999, Amadou Diallo, a 22 yea old A ican immig an was
sho and killed by he police when he ied o each o his pocke o show
some id and he police mis akenly assumed he was eaching o a gun. Se e al
simila inciden s wi h A ican Ame icans ha e occu ed since, namely he
shoo ing o Sean Bell in 2006 and he shoo ing o T ay on Ma in in 2012. In
all hese inciden s, public opinion was ocused on one ques ion in pa icula :
would he police o ice s ha e made he same decision i he suspec had been
whi e, o e en jus non-black?
This was he ques ion ha led Joshua Co ell and his colleagues a he
Uni e si y o Colo ado a Boulde o se up a esea ch p og amme ha would
help p o ide some answe s by ec ea ing in a con olled en i onmen , as
ealis ically as possible, he expe ience ha police o ice s go h ough when
hey a e expec ed o make hese decisions. Acco dingly, Co ell de eloped a
ideo game simula ion in which Whi e o Black a ge s appea ed in di e en
poses and agains di e en backg ounds du ing se e al ials o he ask, ei he
holding a gun o a neu al objec (e. g. mobile phone). Co ell and colleagues
i s used his compu e game in a s udy wi h uni e si y s uden s as pa icipan
colleagues ( Co ell e al. 2002). Resul s yield a pa e n o shoo e bias, whe e
pa icipan s decide o shoo Black mo e quickly and mo e equen ly han
Whi e a ge s. Addi ionally, pa icipan s, on a e age, equi ed mo e ime o
make he decision no o shoo an una med suspec when he suspec was
black han whi e.
A e some yea s, he same esea che s decided o assess he p esence
o such shoo e bias wi hin he police o ice popula ion o a majo us ci y
in he same s a e as he i s s udy. Using he communi y popula ion o he
same geog aphical a ea as a compa ison sample, police o ice s wen h ough
he same compu e simula ion and esul s showed ha bo h police o ice s
and communi y samples exhibi ed obus acial bias in e ms o speed, i. e.
pa icipan s we e quicke o make he decision o shoo black suspec s han
whi e suspec s. No ably, howe e , police o ice s did no show he same shoo e
140 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
bias e ec in e ms o he inal decision. Tha is, al hough communi y membe s
se he shoo ing decision c i e ion lowe o Black a ge s (compa ed o Whi e
suspec s), police o ice s ou pe o med hem by exp essing no such bias in he
decision (Co ell e al. 2007). Acco ding o he au ho s, esul s seem o indica e
ha he aining ha police o ice s go h ough may no a ec he speed wi h
which s e eo ype-incong uen a ge s a e p ocessed, bu ha i does a ec
he ul ima e decision. This esul is consis en wi h he hypo hesis ha he
shoo e bias e ec is pa ially explained by he s e eo ypical associa ions ha
he pa icipan s ha e o he a ge s. In o he wo ds, people ake less ime in
making a decision ha is consis en wi h Black and Whi e s e eo yping and
mo e ime in making a decision ha is inconsis en . Implici p ejudice (i. e.
nega i e s e eo ypes) leads o mo e un a ou able decisions owa ds Blacks.
The esea ch line de eloped by Co ell and colleagues is consis en wi h
(and indi ec ly suppo ed by) esea ch om o he us-based social psychology
colleagues. Fo example, Payne (2001) de eloped a pa adigm in which he was
able o demons a e ha , when guessing he eal con en hidden in blu ed
images, pa icipan s a e quicke o dis inguish weapons om ools when hey
ha e been p e iously p imed wi h pic u es o Black aces, compa ed o Whi e
aces. Ano he (mo e indi ec ) example comes om esea ch by Ebe ha d
and colleagues (Ebe ha d e al. 2004), showing ha people ha e a s onge
endency o u n hei a en ion o Black aces, han o Whi e aces, when hey
ha e been p imed wi h he concep o c ime.
socially c i ical decisions owa ds
low s a us g oup membe s in mo al dilemmas
The classic example o socially c i ical decisions comes om he s udy o mo al
dilemmas, al hough in his case, hese a e o en based on a i icial si ua ions
c ea ed o illus a e undamen al ideas. None heless, hese undamen al ideas
o en esona e wi h eal examples om e e yday li e. When we decide, o
example, i we suppo a wa ha will mos likely kill hund eds o soldie s and
ci ilians o he sake o a mo e jus socie y; o when a i eman has o decide,
du ing a i e, whe he he goes le , o sa e wo elde ly people, o igh , o sa e
a baby.
Bu how do we decide in hese si ua ions? Do we maximise he numbe o
people we sa e? In heo y, mo al ules a e igid and absolu e. The Bible’s Ten
socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 141
Commandmen s include unequi ocal exclusions such as “Thou shal no kill”
In eal li e, howe e , people a e o en puzzled abou wha is he igh hing o
do. Though i is no ye comple ely clea wha d i es people’s decisions wi hin
hese mo al dilemmas, some consis en esul s ha e al eady been iden i ied.
A mos ele an example o his chap e conce ns decisions wi hin mo al
dilemmas in ol ing people om low s a us g oups.
The classic example o a mo al dilemma is he “ olley dilemma”. This
dilemma has se e al e sions bu he mos common one is a e sion wi h a
le e : “The e is a unaway olley ba elling down he ailway acks. Ahead,
on he acks, he e a e i e people ied up and unable o mo e. The olley
is headed s aigh o hem. You a e s anding some dis ance o in he ain
ya d, nex o a le e . I you pull his le e , he olley will swi ch o a di e en
se o acks. Howe e , you no ice ha he e is one pe son ied up on he side
ack.” Thus, you ha e wo op ions, you ei he do no hing, which means he
olley will kill he i e people on he main ack, o you decide o pull he
le e , which di e s he olley o he side ack, sa ing i e people bu killing
one.
While he e is no consensus on wha he igh decision is he e, he wo
undamen al p inciples ha a e e oked by hose making one decision o he
o he ha e been iden i ied. A deon ological p inciple s a es ha he mo ali y
o an ac ion lies in i s in insic na u e (Kan 1785 [1959]), which means ha
causing ha m is always w ong, ega dless o any posi i e consequences ha
may de i e om ha ac ion. This p inciple is e oked by people who choose
no o do any hing. The u ili a ian p inciple s a es ha he mo ali y o an
ac ion depends indeed on i s consequences and ha we should make he
decision ha maximises he well-being o he majo i y o people in ol ed
(Mill 1861 [1998]). This is he p inciple e oked by people who choose o
kill one in o de o sa e i e, as he numbe o li es sa ed by ha decision
is la ge han he numbe o sac i iced ic ims. Hund eds o housands o
people ha e esponded o he olley dilemma and i s le e e sion. And
e en hough he e is no consensus, he majo i y o indi iduals a ou he
u ili a ian p inciple ha you should kill one o sa e many (Cushman, Young
and Hause 2006; G eene e al. 2001).
Recen ly, Cika a and colleagues (Cika a e al. 2010) b ough he s a us
dimension o olley dilemmas in ol ing ic ims and o he indi iduals
di e ing in e ms o social s a us. Cika a and colleagues p esen ed se e al
olley dilemma scena ios o pa icipan s, manipula ing he social s a us

142 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
o he i e people on he main ack and he ic im on he side ack by
p esen ing pic u es in di e en scena ios.1 Resul s showed ha pa icipan s
see he u ili a ian decision – i. e. he decision o sac i ice he ic im on he
side ack o sa e he i e people on he main ack – as mo e a ou able when
he ic im belongs o a low-compe ence g oup and ha he scena io in which
he sac i ice o he ic im was seen as mo e accep able was he one in ol ing
a ic im belonging o a g oup seen as ha ing bo h low-compe ence and low
wa m h (e. g. he homeless o d ug addic s). To ou knowledge, no o he
s udy has manipula ed he ic ims’ s a us wi hin mo al dilemmas, ins ead,
he esea ch has been mo e ocused on dis inguishing how pa icipan s om
uppe - and lowe -classes espond o he dilemmas (Cô é, Pi and Wille
2013).
socially c i ical decisions owa ds
low s a us g oup membe s in he medical con ex
Resea ch on medical decisions is conside ably mo e de eloped han he
p e ious wo esea ch a eas. Consis en wi h o he decision making domains,
heal h ca e p o ide s demons a e implici biases sugges ing he exis ence
o disc imina o y a i udes and decisions owa ds low s a us g oups, such as
Blacks (Blai e al. 2013; Coope e al. 2012; G een e al. 2007; Haide e al.
2011, 2015a, 2015b; Hausmann e al. 2015; Sabin e al. 2009; Schaa e al. 2015;
S epaniko a 2012) and La inos (Blai e al. 2013; S epaniko a 2012).
So why should he le el o bias o a pa icula heal h p o ide be o
conce n du ing medical decision making? E idence om ou sys ema ic
e iews sugges s a signi ican posi i e ela ionship be ween le el o implici
bias and lowe quali y o ca e (Hall e al. 2015; Pa adies, T uong, and P ies
2014; Fi zGe ald and Hu s 2017; Dehon e al. 2017). This lowe quali y o
ca e mani es s i sel in mo e nega i e pa ien -p o ide in e ac ions bu also in
clinical decisions. Indeed, a la ge body o esea ch ound empi ical e idence
o implici bias in luencing clinical decision making owa ds low s a us
1 A sho no e he e o de ine social s a us in his con ex . Fiske and colleagues (Fiske e al. 2002)
posi ed ha g oup s e eo ypes a e de ined in e ms o wo undamen al dimensions: compe ence and
wa m h. A pe son belongs o a low s a us g oup when ha g oup is pe cei ed as being low in compe ence
o wa m h, and na u ally he lowes s a us is a ibu ed o people who a e seen as bo h incompe en and
cold.
socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 143
g oups (Boga e al. 2001; Bu gess e al. 2008; Di Cacca o, Fazal‐Sho and
Moss 2000; D wecki 2011; Pon e o o, Po e e and Johansen 2002; G een e
al. 2007; Hi sh, Jensen and Robinson 2010; S epaniko a 2012; Sabin, Ri a a
and G eenwald 2008; Schulman e al. 1999; Thame e al. 2001). Fo example,
Schulman and colleagues (1999) ound ha physicians we e less likely o e e
Black women o ca diac ca he e isa ion, e en a e con olling o symp oms,
i. e. he physicians’ es ima es o he p obabili y o co ona y disease and clinical
cha ac e is ics. Also wo s udies on ea men ecommenda ions ound
ha p o ide s wi h g ea e implici acial bias a e less likely o ecommend
h ombolysis ea men when p esen ed wi h clinical igne es p esen ing
pa ien s wi h ches pain symp oms, and a e less likely o p esc ibe pos su gical
pain medica ion o a low s a us pa ien (Black) han a high s a us pa ien
(Whi e) (G een e al. 2007).
Se e al s udies ha e shown how he salience o a ge s a us g oup
indi ec ly ac i a es acial s e eo ypes du ing clinical decision making. Fo
example, s udies using acial p imes ound physicians’ medical decisions
being in luenced when subliminally exposed o Black and Hispanic s imuli
( S epaniko a 2012), speci ically, when p imed wi h s e eo ypes ela ed o
A ican Ame icans, pa icipan s ended o a e a hypo he ical pa ien mo e
nega i ely. Ano he s udy ound ha physicians a ed Black pa ien s as less
likely han Whi es o comply wi h medical ad ice o pa icipa e in ca diac
ehabili a ion i p esc ibed, al hough hese di e ences we e o only bo de line
s a is ical signi icance (Van Ryn e al. 2006). Moskowi z and colleagues
(2012) ound ha physicians had lowe us in non-Whi e, compa ed wi h
Whi e, pa ien s.
Fu he mo e, he salience o a ge s a us g oup seems o indi ec ly a ec
indi idual’s e alua ions and judgemen s du ing socially c i ical decision
making. Fo example, in a s udy in ended o examine medical s uden s’
willingness o p esc ibe an i e o i al p e-exposu e p ophylaxis (p ep) o
a Whi e s Black pa ien , pa icipan s judged he Black pa ien o be mo e
likely o inc ease his a e o unp o ec ed sex i p esc ibed p ep, which, in
u n, was associa ed wi h educed willingness o p esc ibe p ep o he Black
pa ien (Calab ese e al. 2014). A simila indi ec e ec was no ound o he
whi e pa ien . This esul is consis en wi h esea ch on s e eo ype ac i a ion
in clinical judgemen and decision making (Hi sh, Jensen and Robinson
2010; Van Ryn e al. 2006), sugges ing ha physicians o en associa e a acial
ca ego y wi h acial s e eo ypes and use hem as decision making heu is ics
144 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
leading o co esponding beha iou . Mo eo e , i has been shown how implici
s e eo yping may a ec diagnosis and ea men wi hou conscious knowledge
o i s in luence, o may e en unduly in luence diagnosis and ea men (Bean
e al. 2014; Do idio and Fiske 2012; Moskowi z, S one, and Childs 2012).
Mo e ecen ly, s udies ha e shown how cogni i e s esso s (e. g. ime
p essu e, cogni i e load) may p omo e eliance on s e eo ypes and acial bias
du ing decision making (Bu gess e al. 2014; S epaniko a 2012). Fo example,
i was ound ha male physicians we e using con olled p ocesses o “co ec ”
o acial s e eo ypes when hey had he oppo uni y o do so (e. g. su icien
cogni i e esou ces), bu we e in luenced by acial s e eo ypes in hei decision
making when unde cogni i e busyness (Bu gess e al. 2014).
socially c i ical decisions owa ds
low s a us g oup membe s in he legal con ex
Resea ch on decision making in he legal con ex is ai ly de eloped oo and
i also yields esul s showing ha low s a us g oup membe s a e a ge ed wi h
mo e un a ou able decisions. Howe e , he dimension his esea ch mos
ocuses on is he one e e ing o acial ca ego ies, i. e. he esea ch on legal
decisions ha in o ms abou possible bias agains low s a us g oup membe s
is almos exclusi ely abou mo e nega i e decisions owa ds di e en - ace
a ge s.
A ecen Po uguese in es iga i e jou nalism s o y (Hen iques, 2017-08-19)
has desc ibed ha one in e e y 73 ci izens o Lusophone A ica o e 16 yea s
old and li ing in Po ugal is in p ison, whe eas o Po uguese ci izens in he
same age g oup he p opo ion is one o 736. The same kind o esul s ha e
come up h oughou he yea s in di e en na ional in es iga ions (Oli ei a
and Gomes 2014; Roldão 2016; Seab a and San os 2006). Howe e , his is
clea ly no an exclusi e p oblem o Po ugal. In he usa, o ins ance, 38%
o he people in p ison a e Black, 21% a e Hispanic, whe eas hey ep esen
13% and 17% o he o al popula ion, espec i ely (Nellis 2016). As s iking
as hese p opo ions a e, hey should be in e p e ed cau iously. Seab a and
San os (2006) ha e modula ed scena ios wi hin he Po uguese con ex in
which he a ios o inca ce a ed popula ion in unc ion o he o al g oup
popula ion accoun o con ounding a iables (such as he social s uc u e o
he g oups), and e en o dis o ions in he da a (such as he non-inclusion
socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 145
o people wi h i egula s a us; he inclusion o o eigne s who do no eside
in he coun y, e c.). When aking in o conside a ion he bigge pic u e, he
di e ence be ween he likelihood o a mig an being in p ison compa ed o a
Po uguese ci izen dec eases bu is, none heless, g ea e o he mig an g oup
han o he Po uguese g oup in e e y scena io.
These di e ences we e desc ibed and analysed in Faigman and colleagues’
e iew in e ms o he di e en s ages o he c iminal pa h, om (1) he Police
encoun e , mo ing o (2) he Cha ge and plea ba gain, and (3) he T ial, and
ending wi h (4) he sen encing (Faigman e al. 2012). The Police encoun e
phase is su icien ly discussed in he sec ion on shoo s. no shoo decisions.
To ou knowledge, he e a e ew s udies ha desc ibe wha happens in he
phase in which p osecu o s decide o cha ge o no o cha ge someone o a
gi en c ime. Fu he mo e, om he esul s o hese s udies, i is no possible
o desc ibe a consis en pa e n, wi h analysis o jus ice da a se s sugges ing
ei he some (Radele and Pie ce 1985) o no dispa a e decisions by p osecu o s
(Ca a elis, Chi icos and Bales 2013). As such, s udies ha can isola e he e ec
o ace o s a us in he cha ge and plea ba gain phase a e in need.
Mo e a en ion has been gi en o he ial and sen encing phases, in ega d
o which we highligh h ee me a-analyses conduc ed in he con ex o mock
ials. Mazzella and Feingold (1994) conduc ed a me a-analysis including 29
s udies which e ealed a non-signi ican e ec o acial bias on ei he ial
judgmen s o sen ences, bu wi h he de endan ’s ace ha ing an e ec on
sen ences quali ied by he ype o c ime.
On he o he hand, a me a-analysis conduc ed by Sweeney and Haney
(1992), including 14 s udies, epo ed a small bu signi ican acial bias
in he sen encing phase, wi h Whi e pa icipan s gi ing Black de endan s
longe sen ences han Whi e ones. To in eg a e hese inconsis en
indings, Mi chell and colleagues (Mi chell e al. 2005) conduc ed ano he
me a-analysis explo ing possible mode a o s o his acial bias e ec . The
au ho s de ined acial bias speci ically as “a ju o ’s dispa a e ea men o a
de endan om a acial ou -g oup, when compa ed wi h a de endan o he
ju o ’s own- ace, in e dic and sen encing decisions”. As such, he au ho s
aimed a ex ending his e ec o an o he - ace con ex . Resul s unequi ocally
demons a ed he exis ence o a small bu signi ican o he - ace acial bias
in s udies add essing ju o decision making, which none heless, and in line
wi h ou a gumen , became mo e p onounced when Whi e ju o s e alua ed
Black de endan s.
152 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
s a us du ing he decision making p ocess. Acco ding o he li e a u e on
implici a i udes (Fazio 1990; Wilson e al. 2000; Do idio e al. 1997), when
pa icipan s become awa e o s udy in en (e. g. acial issue), i hey ha e he
oppo uni y and mo i a ion o hink be o ehand abou he consequences
o hei decisions (e. g. disc imina ion), hei esponses will be p ima ily
based on explici a i udes. In his s udy, pa icipan s had su icien ime (e. g.
oppo uni y) and migh ha e been mo i a ed o con ol o p ejudice, which
may ha e led hem o o e co ec hei esponses owa ds he low s a us a ge .
Ne e heless, when he oppo uni y is no pe mi ed (e. g. due o ime
p essu e) implici a i udes a e mo e in luen ial (Fazio 1990; Wilson e al.
2000; Do idio e al. 1997). Following up on his idea, in S udy 2 we ocused on
he pe cei ed high esponsibili y disease, and added a ime p essu e condi ion
sough o examine he salience e ec o me i oc acy on he pa icipan s’
decision owa ds low s a us g oups wi h a pe cei ed high esponsibili y disease.
Replica ing he p e ious pa adigm, we hypo hesised ha unde he salience o
me i oc acy, pa icipan s in he high p essu e condi ion would be mo e likely
o assign a lowe p io i y le el o a low s a us pa ien (compa ed o a high s a us
a ge ). Resul s indica e ha pa icipan s in he high p essu e condi ion we e
ma ginally mo e likely o assign a lowe p io i y o a low s a us pa ien han
a high s a us pa ien . In con as , pa icipan s in he low p essu e condi ion
we e mo e likely o assign a highe p io i y o a low s a us pa ien , al hough
his di e ence did no each s a is ical signi icance. Mo e impo an ly, esul s
also showed ha hese e ec s we e quali ied by he condi ion o me i oc acy
salience. Speci ically, unde high p essu e, pa icipan s we e signi ican ly
mo e likely o assign a lowe p io i y o he low s a us pa ien han he high
s a us one, and his bias was signi ican ly s onge in he condi ion whe e
me i oc acy was made salien .
some p elimina y conclusions
and un a ou able scd as a ba ie o inclusion
While p o iding ini ial suppo o he main hypo hesis ha me i oc acy
is associa ed wi h mo e un a ou able decisions owa ds low s a us g oup
membe s, his esea ch p og amme is s ill a a e y incipien s age. No only
do we need o s a add essing he o he wo ypes o decisions (in he legal
con ex and he shoo s. no shoo decisions), bu we mus also consolida e

socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 153
ou knowledge on he ob ained e ec s, namely h ough he analysis o he
unde lying mechanisms.
Ne e heless, he esul s ob ained so a allow us o ponde he po en ially
dange ous consequences o p omo ing a me i oc a ic no m. Wha hese esul s
al eady seem o indica e is ha when people a e made o belie e ha socie y
is s uc u ed along me i oc a ic p inciples, hey will make in e ences abou
wha people dese e acco ding o hei si ua ion. They will end o hink ha
people who a e in un a ou able condi ions (i. e. low s a us g oups) a e in hose
ci cums ances o hei own acco d, as i hey a e solely esponsible o hei
si ua ion. This kind o in e ence akes he place o any al e na i e hinking
ha conside s o he de e mining (socie al) ac o s o people’s si ua ions.
Addi ionally, his line o hinking legi imises disc imina o y decisions abou
issues in ol ing low s a us g oup membe s.
A signi ican pa o he meaning o inclusion is abou equal ea men
and equal oppo uni ies. Wha he esul s o ou own wo k and he esul s
o he o he s udies desc ibed in his chap e show is ha people om low
s a us g oups a e ea ed di e en ly, and his di e ence consis en ly means a
mo e nega i e ea men . They a e mo e likely o be sho in police encoun e s;
hey a e mo e likely o be sac i iced i he si ua ion calls o such an ac ; hey
a e mo e likely o be p esc ibed he w ong ea men in a medical con ex
and hey a e mo e likely o be a ge ed wi h ha she sen ences. Mo eo e ,
hese esul s also indica e ha i discussions eme ge abou he exis ence o
his disc imina o y beha iou , he na a i es ha ensue a e cha ac e ised by
disc imina ion-legi imising discou ses ha place he esponsibili y o he
si ua ion on he a ge s o disc imina ion. Thus, his esea ch aims o con ibu e
o a mo e nuanced e lec ion abou he si ua ion o low s a us g oups and how
a i udes and beha iou s may be con ibu ing o a icious cycle, whe e he
discussion abou causali y and esponsibili y may be ain ed om he s a by
disc imina o y o allacious assump ions.
154 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
____________________________________
ui cos a-lopes
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
A . P o . Aníbal Be encou 9 — 1600-036 Lisboa, Po ugal
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-1509-6397
____________________________________
ana ilipa madei a
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0003-4959-7947
____________________________________
ma iana pi es de mi anda
Ins i u o de Ciências Sociais, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
ma iana.mi a[email p o ec ed]lisboa.p
o cid.o g/0000-0003-4208-2967
____________________________________
wilson mo ei a
Faculdade de Psicologia, Uni e sidade de Lisboa
w mo ei a[email p o ec ed]
o cid.o g/0000-0002-6799-0526
____________________________________
e e ences
baldus, D., e al. 1998. “Racial disc imina ion and he dea h penal y in he pos -Fu man
e a: an empi ical and legal o e iew, wi h ecen indings om Philadelphia”. Co nell Law
Re iew, lxxxiii: 1638-1770.
bean, M., e al. 2014. “Documen ing nu sing and medical s uden s’ s e eo ypes abou Hispanic
and Ame ican Indian pa ien s”. Jou nal o Heal h Dispa i ies Resea ch and P ac ice, ii (4):
14-22.
blai , I., C. Judd, and K. Chapleau. 2004. “The in luence o A ocen ic acial ea u es in
c iminal sen encing”. Psychological Science, x (10): 674-679.
blai , I., e al. 2013. “Assessmen o biases agains La inos and A ican Ame icans among
p ima y ca e p o ide s and communi y membe s”. Ame ican Jou nal o Public Heal h, ciii
(1): 92-98.
boga , L., e al. 2001. “Fac o s in luencing physicians’ judgmen s o adhe ence and ea men
decisions o pa ien s wi h hi disease”. Medical Decision Making, xxi (1): 28-36.
bu gess, D. J., e al. 2008. “Pa ien ace and physicians’ decisions o p esc ibe opioids o
ch onic low back pain”. Social Science and Medicine, lx ii (11): 1852-1860.
bu gess, D. J., e al. 2014. “The e ec o cogni i e load and pa ien ace on physicians’ decisions
o p esc ibe opioids o ch onic low back pain: a andomized ial”. Pain Medicine, x (6):
965-974.
socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 155
calab ese, S., e al. 2014. “The impac o pa ien ace on clinical decisions ela ed o p esc ibing
hi p e-exposu e p ophylaxis (p ep): assump ions abou sexual isk compensa ion and
implica ions o access”. aids and Beha io , x iii (2): 226-240.
ca a elis, C., T. Chi icos, and W. Bales. 2013. “Race, e hnici y, h ea , and he designa ion o
ca ee o ende s”. Jus ice Qua e ly, xxx (5): 869-894.
cialdini, R. 1993. The Psychology o Influence. New Yo k: William Mo ow and Co.
cika a, M., e al. 2010. “On he w ong side o he olley ack: Neu al co ela es o ela i e
social alua ion”. Social Cogni i e and A ec i e Neu oscience, (4): 404-413.
coope , L., e al. 2012. “The associa ions o clinicians’ implici a i udes abou ace wi h
medical isi communica ion and pa ien a ings o in e pe sonal ca e”. Ame ican Jou nal
o Public Heal h, cii (5): 979-987.
co ell, J., e al. 2002. “The police o ice ’s dilemma: Using e hnici y o disambigua e
po en ially h ea ening indi iduals”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, lxxxiii
(6): 1314-1329.
co ell, J., e al. 2007. “Ac oss he hin blue line: police o ice s and acial bias in he decision
o shoo ”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, xcii (6): 1006-1023.
cos a-lopes, R., C. R. Pe ei a. 2012. “A no ma i idade das a i udes e do compo amen o
social: uma in odução”. In No mas, A i udes e Compo amen o Social, o gs. R. Cos a-
-Lopes and C. R. Pe ei a. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 15-24.
cos a-lopes, R., D. Wigboldus, and J. Vala. 2017. P iming Me i oc acy Inc eases Implici
P ejudice. Lisbon: Colecção Wo king Pape s ics.
cô é, S., P. Pi , and R. Wille . 2013. “Fo whom do he ends jus i y he means? Social class
and u ili a ian mo al judgmen ”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, ci (3): 490-
-503.
cushman, F., L. Young, and M. Hause . 2006. “The ole o conscious easoning and in ui ion
in mo al judgmen es ing h ee p inciples o ha m”. Psychological Science, x ii (12): 1082-
-1089.
dehon, E., e al. 2017. “A sys ema ic e iew o he impac o physician implici acial bias on
clinical decision making”. Academic Eme gency Medicine, xxi (8): 895-904.
deu sch, M., H. Ge a d. 1955. “A s udy o no ma i e and in o ma ional social in luences
upon indi idual judgmen ”. The Jou nal o Abno mal and Social Psychology, li (3): 629-
-636.
di cacca o, A., N. Fazal‐Sho , and T. Moss. 2000. “P ima y ca e decision making in esponse
o psychological complain s: The in luence o pa ien ace”. Jou nal o Communi y and
Applied Social Psychology, x (1): 63-67.
do idio, J., e al. 1997. “On he na u e o p ejudice: Au oma ic and con olled p ocesses”.
Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, xxxiii (5): 510-540.
do idio, J., S. Fiske. 2012. “Unde he ada : how unexamined biases in decision-making
p ocesses in clinical in e ac ions can con ibu e o heal h ca e dispa i ies”. Ame ican
Jou nal o Public Heal h, cii (5): 945-952.
d wecki, B. B. 2011. “An expe imen al in es iga ion o he causes o and solu ions o acial
pain ea men bias”. Doc o al disse a ion, Madison, Uni e si y o Wisconsin-Madison.
ebe ha d , J., e al. 2004. “Seeing black: Race, c ime, and isual p ocessing”. Jou nal o
Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, lxxx ii (6): 876-893.
aigman, D. L., e al. 2012. “Implici Bias in he Cou oom”. 59 ucla Law Re iew, 1124: 1126-
-1186.
156 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
azio, R. 1990. “Mul iple p ocesses by which a i udes guide beha io : The mode model as an
in eg a i e amewo k”. In Ad ances in Expe imen al Social Psychology, ed. M. P. Zanna.
San Diego, ca: Academic P ess, 75-109.
i zge ald, C., and S. Hu s . 2017. “Implici bias in heal hca e p o essionals: A sys ema ic
e iew”. bmc Medical E hics, x iii (1): 19.
u nham, A. 1982. “The P o es an wo k e hic and a i udes owa ds unemploymen ”. Jou nal
o Occupa ional Psychology, l (4): 277-285.
g aham, S., and B. Lowe y. 2004. “P iming unconscious acial s e eo ypes abou adolescen
o ende s”. Law and Human Beha iou , xx iii (5): 483-504.
g een, A., e al. 2007. “Implici bias among physicians and i s p edic ion o h ombolysis
decisions o black and whi e pa ien s”. Jou nal o Gene al In e nal Medicine, xxii (9):
1231-1238.
g een, E., J.-C. Deschamps, and D. Páez. 2005. “Va ia ion o indi idualism and collec i ism
wi hin and be ween 20 coun ies: a ypological analysis”. Jou nal o C oss-Cul u al
Psychology, xxx i (3): 321-339.
g eene, J., e al. 2001. “An m i in es iga ion o emo ional engagemen in mo al judgmen ”.
Science, ccxciii (5537): 2105-2108.
haide , A., e al. 2011. “Associa ion o unconscious ace and social class bias wi h igne e-
based clinical assessmen s by medical s uden s”. Jama, ccc i (9): 942-951.
haide , A., e al. 2015a. “Unconscious ace and social class bias among acu e ca e su gical
clinicians and clinical ea men decisions”. jama Su ge y, cl (5): 457-464.
haide , A., e al. 2015b. “Unconscious ace and class biases among egis e ed nu ses: igne e-
based s udy using implici associa ion es ing”. Jou nal o he Ame ican College o Su geons,
ccxx (6): 1077-1086.
hall, W., e al. 2015. “Implici acial/e hnic bias among heal h ca e p o essionals and i s
in luence on heal h ca e ou comes: a sys ema ic e iew”. Ame ican Jou nal o Public
Heal h, c (12): e60-e76.
hausmann, L., e al. 2015. “Examining implici bias o physicians who ca e o indi iduals
wi h spinal co d inju y: A pilo s udy and u u e di ec ions”. The Jou nal o Spinal Co d
Medicine, xxx iii (1): 102-110.
hen iques, J. 2017. “A jus iça em Po ugal é ‘mais du a’ pa a os neg os”. Público, Aug. 19, Re is a.
hi sh, A., M. Jensen, and M. Robinson. 2010. “E alua ion o nu ses’ sel -insigh in o hei
pain assessmen ea men decisions”. The Jou nal o Pain, xi (5): 454-461.
jos , J., O. Hunyady. 2005. “An eceden s and consequences o sys em-jus i ying ideologies”.
Cu en Di ec ions in Psychological Science, xi (5): 260-265.
kan , I. 1959. Founda ion o he Me aphysics o Mo als. Indianapolis, in: Bobbs-Me ill.
kluegel, J., E. Smi h. 1986. Belie s Abou Inequali y: Ame icans’ View O Wha Is And Wha
Ough To Be. New Je sey: Aldine T ansac ion.
mazzella, R., A. Feingold. 1994. “The e ec s o physical a ac i eness, ace, socioeconomic
s a us, and gende o de endan and ic ims on judgmen s o mock ju o s: A me a-
analysis”. Jou nal o Applied Social Psychology, xxi (15): 1315-1338.
mccoy, S., B. Majo . 2007. “P iming me i oc acy and he psychological jus i ica ion o
inequali y”. Jou nal o Expe imen al Social Psychology, xliii (3): 341-351.
mill, J. S. 1998. U ili a ianism. New Yo k, ny: Ox o d Uni e si y P ess.
mi chell, T., e al. 2005. “Racial bias in mock ju o decision-making: a me a-analy ic e iew
o de endan ea men ”. Law and Human Beha io , xxix (6): 621-637.
socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups 157
moskowi z, G., J. S one, and A. Childs. 2012. “Implici s e eo yping and medical decisions:
unconscious s e eo ype ac i a ion in p ac i ione s’ hough s abou A ican Ame icans”.
Ame ican Jou nal o Public Heal h, cii (5): 996-1001.
nellis, A. 2016. “The colo o jus ice: acial and e hnic dispa i y in s a e p isons”. The
Sen encing P ojec , h p://www.sen encingp ojec .o g/publica ions/colo -o -jus ice- acia
l-and-e hnic-dispa i y-in-s a e-p isons/.
oli ei a, C., N. Gomes. 2014. Moni o iza A In eg ação de Imig an es em Po ugal: Rela ó io
Es a ís ico Decenal. Lisbon: Al o Comissa iado pa a as Mig ações (acm, ip).
pa adies, Y., M. T uong, and N. P ies . 2014. “A sys ema ic e iew o he ex en and
measu emen o heal hca e p o ide acism”. Jou nal o Gene al In e nal Medicine, xxix (2):
364-387.
payne, K. 2001. “P ejudice and pe cep ion: The ole o au oma ic and con olled p ocesses
in mispe cei ing a weapon”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social Psychology, lxxxi (2): 181-
-192.
pon e o o, J., J. Po e e, and S. Johansen. 2002. “The Quick Disc imina ion Index: No ma i e
da a and use guidelines o counseling esea che s”. Jou nal o Mul icul u al Counseling
and De elopmen , xxx (3): 192-207.
adele , M. L., and Pie ce, G. L. (1985). “Race and p osecu o ial disc e ion in homicide cases”.
Law and Socie y Re iew, 19: 587-621.
oldão, C. 2016. “Os a odescenden es no sis ema educa i o po uguês”. Pape p esen ed
a Encon os Mensais sob e Expe iências Mig a ó ias, Lisboa, Faculdade de Le as da
Uni e sidade de Lisboa, Ap il 27.
sabin, J., F. Ri a a, and A. G eenwald. 2008. “Physician implici a i udes and s e eo ypes
abou ace and quali y o medical ca e”. Medical Ca e, xl i (7): 678-685.
sabin, J., e al. 2009. “Physicians’ implici and explici a i udes abou ace by md ace, e hnici y,
and gende ”. Jou nal o Heal h Ca e o he Poo and Unde se ed, xx (3): 896--913.
schaa, K., e al. 2015. “Gene ic counselo s’ implici acial a i udes and hei ela ionship o
communica ion”. Heal h Psychology, xxxi (2): 111-119.
schulman, K., e al. 1999. “The e ec o ace and sex on physicians’ ecommenda ions o
ca diac ca he e iza ion”. New England Jou nal o Medicine, cccxl (8): 618-626.
seab a, H., and T. San os. 2006. Reclusos Es angei os em Po ugal: Es eios de Uma
P oblema ização. Lisbon: Al o Comissa iado pa a a Mig ação e Mino ias É nicas.
somme s, S., P. Ellswo h. 2000. “Race in he cou oom: Pe cep ions o guil and disposi ional
a ibu ions”. Pe sonali y and Social Psychology Bulle in, xx i (11): 1367-1379.
somme s, S., and P. Ellswo h. 2001. “Whi e ju o bias: An in es iga ion o p ejudice agains
Black de endan s in he Ame ican cou oom”. Psychology, Public Policy, and Law, ii (1):
201-229.
s ull, T., R. Wye . 1979. “The ole o ca ego y accessibili y in he in e p e a ion o in o ma ion
abou pe sons: Some de e minan s and implica ions”. Jou nal o Pe sonali y and Social
Psychology, xxx ii (10): 1660-1672.
s epaniko a, I. 2012. “Racial-E hnic Biases, Time P essu e, and Medical Decisions”. Jou nal
o Heal h and Social Beha io , 53 (3): 329-343.
sweeney, L., C. Haney. 1992. “The influence o ace on sen encing: A me a-analy ic e iew o
expe imen al s udies”. Beha io al Sciences and he Law, x (2): 179-195.
hame , M., e al. 2001. “U. S. Neph ologis s’ a i udes owa ds enal ansplan a ion: esul s
om a na ional su ey”. T ansplan a ion, lxxi (2): 281-288.

158 ambiguous inclusions: inside ou , ou side in
ala, J., M. Lima, and D. Lopes. 2004. “Social alues, p ejudice and solida i y in he Eu opean
Union”. In Eu opean Values a he End o he Millennium, eds. W. A s, and L. Halman.
Leiden: B ill.
an yn, M., e al. 2006. “Physicians’ pe cep ions o pa ien s’ social and beha io al
cha ac e is ics and ace dispa i ies in ea men ecommenda ions o men wi h co ona y
a e y disease”. Ame ican Jou nal o Public Heal h, xc i (2): 351-357.
wilson, T., S. Lindsey, and T. Schoole . 2000. “A model o dual a i udes”. Psychological Re iew,
c ii: 101-126.
ci e his chap e as:
cos a-lopes, R. 2018. “Socially c i ical decisions owa ds low s a us g oups: he ole o me i oc acy”.
In Changing Socie ies: Legacies and Challenges. Vol. i. Ambiguous Inclusions: Inside Ou , Inside In,
eds. S. Aboim, P. G anjo, A. Ramos. Lisbon: Imp ensa de Ciências Sociais, 137-158.
h ps://doi.o g/10.31447/ics9789726715030.06