Discussion An invitation to Tetlock and Mitchell to conduct empirical research on implicit bias with friends, ‘‘adversaries,’’ or whomever they please John T. Jost a, * , Laurie A. Rudman b , Irene V. Blair c , Dana R. Carney d , Nilanjana Dasgupta e , Jack Glaser f , Curtis D. Hardin g a New York University, United States b Rutgers University, United States c University of Colorado, Boulder, United States d Columbia Business School, United States e University of Massachusetts, Amherst, United States f Goldman School of Public Policy, University of California at Berkeley, United States g Brooklyn College and Graduate Center, City University of New York, United States Available online 8 August 2009 Although Tetlock and Mitchell have never published any empirical studies on implicit bias – nor, to our knowledge, have they attempted any such studies – Tetlock and colleagues have now published at least seven critiques of research in this area (Arkes & Tetlock, 2004; Blanton, Jaccord, Klick, Mellers, Mitchell & Tetlock, 2009; Mitchell & Tetlock, 2006; Tetlock & Arkes, 2004; Tetlock & Mitchell, 2008, 2009a; Wax & Tetlock, 2005). We have argued that many of their criticisms are specious and that the most serious of their objections are contradicted by existing empirical evidence, which we reviewed for the readers of Research in Organizational Behavior (Jost et al., 2009). In ‘‘A Renewed Appeal for Adversarial Collaboration,’’ Tetlock and Mitchell (2009b) accuse Jost et al. (2009) of ‘‘numerous misrepresentations’’ in rebutting their latest attack on implicit bias research. In this brief reply, we seek to clarify where the misrepresentations (or perhaps misunderstandings) really lie and to address the alleged need for ‘‘adversarial collaboration’’ with respect to research on implicit bias. Tetlock and Mitchell (2009b) deny encouraging ‘‘organizational complacency’’ about the problem of implicit bias, but it was they who posed the rhetorical question, ‘‘What Must Organizations Do to Check Implicit Bias?’’ in the title of their (2009a) chapter and apparently concluded, after more than 70 manuscript pages of assailing implicit bias research, that the answer is ‘‘not much’’ (or perhaps ‘‘nothing yet’’). Tetlock and Mitchell (2009b) also deny the charge of ‘‘blanket skepticism,’’ yet declared that ‘‘there is no evidence that the IAT reliably predicts class-wide discrimination on tangible outcomes in any setting’’ (2009a, p. 6). Recent reviews considering dozens of studies that empirically link several indicators of implicit bias to a great many ‘‘tangible outcomes’’ show that their repeated claim that implicit measures have no predictive validity are demonstrably false (Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; Hardin & Banaji, in press; Hofmann, Gawronski, Gschwendner, Le, & Schmitt, 2005; Jost et al., 2009). Despite the inauspicious nature of their overtures to researchers of implicit bias, Tetlock and Mitchell (2009b) now state that their true goal is to stimulate a process of collaboration with their ‘‘adversaries’’ and that this was in fact the core theme Available online at www.sciencedirect.com Research in Organizational Behavior 29 (2009) 73–75 * Corresponding author. E-mail address: john.jost@nyu.edu (J.T. Jost). 0191-3085/$ – see front matter # 2009 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved. doi:10.1016/j.riob.2009.06.009