Stereotype

On my way to work, I heard the news that we have to follow incredibly stringent rules when submitting photographs for application of Chinese visa. Absurd as the requirement is, it states precisely the dimension of the face, the interval length between two pupils, the area for the two eyes to fall within the photograph, and emotion of the applicant. For this very reason, many applicants fail.

I had no idea what these rules are trying to achieve, but I tried to guess. Can they make the identification more accurate? Can they get rid of forged visas? The answer in both cases is no. Be not beguiled. Our brains don't need that detailed and sophisticated photograph to make a conclusion.

Which brings me, somewhat uncomfortably, to the question of how stereotype - and not detailed analysis - determines our decision. To try to prove this point, a psychologist carried out an experiment by flashing either a black face or a white face on a computer screen. The subjects caught a glimpse of the face, and were then shown either a picture of a gun or a picture of a wrench. Each lasted for 200 milliseconds. Imagine you were sitting in front of the computer, you would know that details like the dimension of the face and the pupil separation won't make a centimeter of difference in 200 milliseconds. Here comes the results of that study: when subjects were primed with a black face first, they would identify the gun as a gun a little more quickly than if they were shown a white face first. It's a grotesque "colour-bind" prejudice, to say the least.

What if the subjects were forced to make a snap decision within 500 milliseconds? Well, they were quicker to call a gun a gun when they saw a black face first. But you will be surprised at how many errors occur. In fact - and this is the interesting part - when they saw a black face first, the subjects were also quicker to call a wrench a gun.

Sure, it seems unfair. But so do lots of things. Judging application materials, for instance, seems very unfair. A recent randomized, double-blind study published in the Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences confirmed a real bias against female students, even in science faculty from research-intensive universities. Researchers did an experiment by submitting identical curricula vitae to a broad, nationwide sample of biology, chemistry, and physics professors - there were 127 in all - to apply for a science laboratory manager position. The CVs were exactly the same except a random allocation to be submitted under a male or female name. In the end, women were significantly less competent and hireable than men even though student gender was the only variable that differed. Women were, I should make plain, also offered a lower starting salary. How can that be? Stereotype bias, but hey, it's something.