Hmm, well, we kind of already knew this. Anyway:

For their study, Nosek, Banaji and social psychologist Erik Thompson culled self-acknowledged views about blacks from nearly 130,000 whites, who volunteered online to participate in a widely used test of racial bias that measures the speed of people's associations between black or white faces and positive or negative words. The researchers examined correlations between explicit and implicit attitudes and voting behavior in all 435 congressional districts.

The analysis found that substantial majorities of Americans, liberals and conservatives, found it more difficult to associate black faces with positive concepts than white faces -- evidence of implicit bias. But districts that registered higher levels of bias systematically produced more votes for Bush.

"Obviously, such research does not speak at all to the question of the prejudice level of the president," said Banaji, "but it does show that George W. Bush is appealing as a leader to those Americans who harbor greater anti-black prejudice."

I'll admit, I love taking these tests. I don't know why, it's probably some kind of self-love for receiving the science seal of approval for my lack of bias even against various religions (except I apparently have an implicit bias against conformists and fat people). Taking these tests is definitely some unhealthy form of self-obsession, but take them for yourself and see whether you have some form of hidden bigotry.

Alternatively one can say that it isn't our initial (and uncontrollable) responses to people that define us, but our actual actions towards others that define whether or not we are biased. I, however, prefer to maintain my self-superiority for lacking implicit biases. Maybe I could really throw a wrench in the system by lacking implicit bias, but still being a bigot in my actions. Seems like too much effort though.