{'fraction_non_alphanumeric': 0.010043041606886656, 'fraction_numerical': 0.0, 'mean_word_length': 6.347368421052631, 'pattern_counts': {'":': 0, '<': 0, '<?xml version=': 0, '>': 0, 'https://': 0, 'lorem ipsum': 0, 'www.': 0, 'xml': 0}, 'pii_count': 0, 'substrings_counts': 0, 'word_list_counts': {'cursed_substrings.json': 0, 'profanity_word_list.json': 0, 'sexual_word_list.json': 0, 'zh_pornsignals.json': 0}}
Calibrating Prejudice in Milliseconds

Psychological social psychologists have devoted great effort to measuring the elusive construct of unconscious prejudice. However, recent work underscores both the psychometric flaws of these measures and the weaknesses in claims that they predict behavior in realistic organizational settings. Before accepting unconscious prejudice as an inevitable source of individual-level disparate treatment and endorsing structural solutions such as quotas, sociological social psychologists need to explore the relative efficacy of institutional norms and accountability systems widely used for checking both conscious and unconscious forms of individual-level bias.