Despite an international legal and normative framework and other global efforts to prevent childhood statelessness, an estimated 70,000 stateless children are born each year in the countries that are home to the twenty largest populations of stateless persons. Children continue to be born stateless, largely due to the inheritance of statelessness from one generation to another. In Southeast Asia, the various causes of statelessness revolve around discriminatory nationality laws premised on race, ethnicity, gender, religion and many other grounds. This chapter examines the different forms of discrimination that engender and perpetuate childhood statelessness in this subregion. It argues that many hereditary and protracted cases of statelessness experienced by children result from direct and indirect discriminatory laws, policies and practices. Case studies from Myanmar, Cambodia, Thailand and Malaysia are discussed to illustrate the dynamics of discrimination that arbitrarily deprive children of their right to a nationality. In addition, the chapter draws on the perspectives of the applicable international norms and their limitations, as well as presents some insights into potential solutions for countering this phenomenon.

While statelessness remains a global phenomenon, it is a global issue with an Asian epicentre. This chapter situates the book within the context and multi-disciplinary scholarship on statelessness in Asia by reviewing the causes, conditions and/or challenges of statelessness. It recognizes statelessness in this region as a phenomenon beyond forced migration and highlights the arbitrary and discriminatory use of state power in producing and sustaining statelessness. The chapter reviews the ‘state of statelessness’ in Asia, including applicable international, regional and national legal frameworks. It also maps some of the core themes that emerge from the contributors’ examination of the causes and conditions of statelessness in Asia. These include: the relationship between ethnic, religious, cultural and linguistic diversity and statelessness; the legacies of colonialism; contemporary politics surrounding nation-building, border regimes and mobilities; as well as intersecting vulnerabilities. The chapter concludes with some preliminary thoughts on frameworks of analysis and future research agendas, including challenges and prospects for reform.

In this chapter we identify scientific gaps research to date regarding the ability of IAT scores to explain real world racial gaps. We use the term “IAT scores” rather than “implicit bias” because, as we show: (1) Implicit bias has no consensual scientific definition; (2) A definition offered by Greenwald (2017) is shown to be logically incoherent and empirically unjustified; (3) Exactly what the IAT measures remains unclear. Nonetheless, meta-analyses have shown that IAT scores predict discrimination to a modest extent. Alternative explanations for gaps are briefly reviewed, highlighting that IAT scores offer only one of many possible such explanations. We then present a series of heuristic models that assume that IAT scores can only explain what is left over, after accounting for other explanations of gaps. This review concludes that IAT scores probably explain a modest portion of those gaps. Even if the IAT captures implicit biases, and those implicit biases were completely eliminated, the extent to which racial gaps would be reduced is minimal. We conclude by arguing that, despite its limitations, the IAT should not be abandoned, but that, even after twenty years, much more research is needed to fully understand what the IAT measures and explains.

On average, Black Americans’ health is poorer than that of White Americans. We examine three pathways by which implicit racial bias may contribute to racial health disparities. First, implicit and explicit racial bias cause racial discrimination, producing chronic stress and limited access to resources among Black targets of discrimination. This directly and negatively affects their health. This pathway has substantial empirical support. Second, physician implicit racial bias negatively affects treatment recommendations to Black patients, causing racial health disparities. Although intuitively appealing, currently there is little empirical support for this pathway. Third, physician implicit racial bias negatively influences the quality of healthcare interactions with Black patients, causing racial health disparities. This pathway has substantial empirical support. We conclude by highlighting differences in the ways social cognition and applied health disparity researchers study implicit racial bias, and make an argument for the benefits of dialogue and mutual collaborations between these two groups.

There are widespread assumptions that implicit group bias leads to biased behavior. This chapter summarizes existing evidence on the link between implicit group bias and biased behavior, with an analysis of the strength of that evidence for causality. Our review leads to the conclusion that although there is substantial evidence that implicit group bias is related to biased behavior, claims about causality are not currently supported. With plausible alternative explanations for observed associations, as well as the possibility of reverse causation, scientists and policy makers need to be careful about claims made and actions taken to address discrimination, based on the assumption that implicit bias is the problem.

Scholars have long recognized that successful prediction of behavior on the basis of explicit attitudes depends on the correspondence between the attitude measure and the focal behavior. Fishbein and Ajzen (2010) argued that behaviors vary in terms of their action, target, context, and time, and that the prediction of specific behaviors is greatly enhanced when explicit attitude measures reflect these features of the to-be-predicted behavior. We argue that the same principle applies in the case of predicting behavior from implicit attitudes, and we review relevant evidence relating to each of Fishbein and Ajzen’s parameters. Special attention is paid to the target parameter, given increasing awareness of the intersectional nature of bias. A global race bias may not extend equally to all members of a particular racial identity, and cross-cutting factors such as gender, age, or sexuality may qualify the extent to which global measures of race bias predict discriminatory behavior toward particular individuals.

This chapter reviews research on a contemporary form of prejudice – aversive racism – and considers the important role of implicit bias in the subtle expressions of discrimination associated with aversive racism. Aversive racism characterizes the racial attitudes of a substantial portion of well-intentioned people who genuinely endorse egalitarian values and believe that they are not prejudiced but at the same time possess automatically activated, often nonconscious, negative feelings and beliefs about members of another group. Our focus in this chapter is on the bias of White Americans toward Black Americans, but we also discuss relevant findings in other intergroup contexts. We emphasize the importance of considering, jointly, both explicit and implicit biases for understanding subtle, and potentially unintentional, expressions of discrimination. The chapter concludes by discussing how research on aversive racism and implicit bias has been mutually informative and suggests specific promising directions for future work.

For many years, the reality about the role of women in American and southern history remained the absence of scholarship about women and the absence of women in the profession. The journey of women into the world of professional historians involved overcoming many stereotypes and prejudices. A few women emerged as professional historians who made major contributions into new areas of scholarship as early as the post-World War II years, but the ratio of women to men only began to increase in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Economist Claudia Goldin identified a “quiet revolution” of women entering the history profession between 1950 and 1970, which then exploded as women rushed into the profession in force during the 1970s. The influx of talented women opened new fields of study (women, family, social history topics, etc.). This chapter examines the influence of women who shaped new areas of study while also offering new perspectives on longstanding questions of broad scholarly interest.

After the Civil War, the American South seemed to be the exception to American exceptionalism. As the late British historian Eric Hobsbawm asserted, after the end of Reconstruction, the South remained “agrarian, poor, backward, and resentful; whites resenting the never-forgotten defeat and blacks the disfranchisement and ruthless subordination imposed by whites when reconstruction ended.” Confederate defeat and the emancipation of slaves left the American South faced with the challenge of embarking upon the “Age of Capital” while largely bereft of capital. This chapter focuses on how the southern capital shortage turned much of the rural South into a “vast pawn shop” with financing for planting crops coming from a mortgage on a crop not yet produced. As beggars for capital, the American South became the ragged stepchild of the industrializing American economy, an economic backwater controlled by outside capital. Active economic legacies of the capital-starved South still haunt the region’s economic landscape in the form of underdeveloped human capital.

The nature of prejudice and bigotry have changed in recent decades. In most communities it is unacceptable to be openly racist, sexist, or homophobic. Norms against prejudice have certainly changed. It is true that prejudice directed toward many groups has decreased; however, individual attitudes have not necessarily caught up with changing norms. As a result, some people hide their prejudices, attempting to mask their discrimination in neutral-seeming behavior. Others truly believe they are not prejudiced, even when they are. Social psychologists have spent recent decades measuring and mapping the nature of subtle, covert, and implicit forms of contemporary prejudice. Benign Bigotry critically examines seven contemporary myths and assumptions that reflect prejudice that appears common sense, even harmless, but actually reveal the perniciousness and insidiousness of contemporary prejudice. Benign Bigotry critically analyzes: (1) the assumption that prejudice is an individual-only problem; (2) that people in outgroups are all alike; (3) that those accused of a crime are likely guilty of something; (4) that feminists are manhaters; (5) that LGBTQ+ people flaunt their sexuality; (6) that those who claim racial colorblindness are not racists; and (7) that affirmative action amounts to reverse racism.

This chapter focuses on the Black Parenting Strengths and Strategies (BPSS), a parenting intervention developed to incorporate the most successful strategies used by parenting and child development specialists, while drawing on the strengths, unique parental strategies, and processes inherent in Black families (e.g., racial socialization). Interested in how BPSS fairs when implemented in less controlled settings (real-world contexts), BPSS was subsequently evaluated via an effectiveness study (Coard et al., ), which provided additional support for the feasibility and receptibility of the BPSS program and highlighted the potential effectiveness. We describe the process undertaken as part of the effectiveness study to evaluate BPSS and describe its “real-world” implementation across multiple community centers/settings servicing Black/African American families. Informed by a community-based participatory approach, we (a) provide the rationale for and an overview of the BPSS, (b) describe the translational process in implementing BPSS, (c) outline lessons learned, and (d) summarize the recommendations for practitioners’ use of BPSS.