What works? Empirically informed bias training The University of Sheffield, 24/09/2018

(How) should we conduct implicit bias training? Reasons for qualified optimism Reasons for confusion Today’s discussions

“The NAACP is calling for an expansion of the movement to demand mandatory testing for implicit bias, particularly for officials paid with public dollars. For major corporations, implicit bias training must become a part of corporate responsibility rather than [merely] a response to video-taped intolerance”. Derrick Johnson, 2018

Reasons for qualified optimism Studies show that implicit bias interventions – education and training – can have good effects: Devine et al 2012: raising awareness about implicit bias, and training (5 strategies) produced reduction in implicit bias, greater concern about discrimination, and increased awareness of own propensity for bias, at two months follow up. 5 strategies include: stereotype replacement; counter-stereotypic imagining; individuating; perspective-taking; increasing opportunities for contact with stigmatised group members.

Reasons for qualified optimism Not so simple… Forscher et al 2017: replicated this study. The intervention had little effect on implicit bias, compared to control groups. But those who had the intervention – education and training – showed changes in concern about racial bias, and greater awareness of others’ bias, over two weeks. Possibly, some effects persisted 2 years later.

Yet… The EHRC report by Atewologun, Cornish and Tresh (2018) points out that there is very little systematicity in: what the aims of bias training are; what methods are used to achieve those aims; evaluation of whether it has effectively done so.

Reasons for confusion 1. Importance of providing information about what implicit bias is: how best to do this? 2. Implicit, unconscious, automatic? Assumptions being made 3. Role of IATs in bias training

Reasons for confusion 1. Importance of providing information about what implicit bias is. E.g. Carnes et al (2012) report that in their bias literacy workshop, they present optical illusions to show how we can easily misjudge.

Reasons for confusion Importance of providing information about what implicit bias is. The idea: making individuals aware of the automatic nature of stereotype activation, and hence the pervasiveness of stereotyping, may lead to greater willingness to engage in checks on unproductive thoughts that arise from stereotyping; not only will individuals be aware of their susceptibility to biased thoughts, but they will not feel singled out as bigots (in Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015)

Reasons for confusion Importance of providing information about what implicit bias is. BUT: presenting bias as pervasive and normal can lead people to stereotype more, even when they are told to try to avoid doing so (Duguid & Thomas-Hunt, 2015, p.347 – studies a-c looked at age, women and weight related stereotypes and found this effect).

Reasons for confusion Importance of providing information about what implicit bias is. This problematic effect disappeared in the condition in which participants were told about the pervasiveness of efforts to overcome stereotyping and biases. Note: this was an alternative condition. We don’t have evidence about what happens when people are told both that bias is pervasive, and are efforts to overcome it.

Reasons for confusion 2. Implicit, unconscious, automatic? Assumptions being made Cameron et al 2010: when described as automatic, participants were more likely to judge individuals to be morally responsible for implicit biases than when it was described as unconscious bias. Participants are likely making inferences about moral responsibility, whether we address it or not.

Reasons for confusion 3. Role of IATs in bias training Carnes et al (2012), Devine et al (2012), Forscher et al (2017) use an IAT and feedback.

Reasons for confusion 3. Role of IATs in bias training “attempts to diagnostically use such measures for individuals risk undesirably high rates of erroneous classifications” (Greenwald et al 2015) “the IAT should NOT be used as a diagnostic tool” Banaji, correspondance published 2018

Reasons for confusion 3. Role of IATs in bias training Monteith et al (2001): 64% of participants were able to report accurately on their own responses on an IAT (that they responded more slowly when pairing black names with pleasant terms) IAT as a useful tool for personal reflection on automatic responses.

Reasons for confusion Further issues: Should implicit bias be framed as sometimes useful or always troublesome? Should implicit bias be framed as irrational or arational, immoral or amoral or…? Should implicit bias be framed as something for which we are as individuals responsible? How to avoid this being pitched as an alternative to institutional responsibility?

Reasons for confusion Further issues: What is the best way to motivate addressing biases – considerations of justice or efficacy (or both)? How should we talk about the relationship between individual cognition and social structures or institutional settings? Is it better to introduce information about implicit bias in face-to-face settings, or via online resources or…?

What is the case vs. what is effective… Reasons for confusion What is the case vs. what is effective…

Today’s discussions Dr Joseph Sweetman: Panel discussion: framing implicit bias: Dr Chloë Fitzgerald and Dr Tom Stafford Panel discussion: the aims of implicit bias training: Dr Jules Holroyd and Dr Joseph Sweetman

Today’s discussions Outcomes: Resources to be pooled at www.confrontingbias.group.shef.ac.uk