Unconscious Bias Training

Discussion

1. Kenan Malik:

“At the heart of unconscious bias training is a controversial psychological technique called “implicit-association test”, or IAT. First introduced in 1998, IAT tests for the speed at which you associate particular categories, black people and white people, for instance, with “good” and “bad” attributes (“violent” or “intelligent”). Individuals who are quicker to associate black people with violence or white people with intelligence are supposedly revealing their hidden biases.

There is, though, little evidence that this is true. People tested several times often receive very different scores. A meta-analysis of almost 500 studies found that training has only a “weak” effect on an individual’s implicit-bias score, and none on their behaviour.

The biggest problem, though, is that which Sivanandan and Lasch-Quinn warned about: the shift of focus from social change to personal therapy. Nobody actually says, “we don’t want to change society”. But by focusing on whiteness and personal psychology, the significance of laws and social structures is downgraded in favour of unconscious thought.

The therapeutic approach, Sivanandan presciently observed, turns racism into “a combination of mental illness, original sin and biological determinism”, an “‘essence’ that history has deposited in the white psyche”. Because “there is no escaping it” – all white people are racist either consciously or unconsciously – it’s an outlook that is both pessimistic and divisive.” (https://amp.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2020/jul/12/enough-of-the-psychobabble-racism-is-not-something-to-fix-with-therapy?)

2. Steven J. Lawrence:

"Although it’s popular in the Diversity, Equity and Inclusion consulting industry, unconscious bias training is not only based on the harmful foundation of group identity essentialism and its accompanying endorsement of installing social hierarchies in communities in which this training has been introduced, it is largely regarded as unscientific in its findings and unethical in its implementation.

Journalist Jesse Singal’s comprehensive analysis of the increasingly discredited Implicit Bias Test provides a window into why the idea of unconscious bias continues to be alluring despite its decreasing legitimacy among members of the scientific community. In addition, a 2020 study showed that “White Privilege” training does not significantly increase empathy towards people of color. When this type of training is based on the unfalsifiable presumption of “unconscious bias” in individuals who belong to specific demographic groups, there is not much of an argument for the “added value” of these trainings for companies and organizations. And when we consider that this very same study showed a severe decrease of empathy for poor white people in white participants after white privilege trainings, it’s hard to deny the strong probability that these trainings are actively harmful for all people who participate in them and, by extension, those who have the misfortune of interacting with them now that they have ingested what can reasonably called a mind virus that urges its hosts to presume evil, badness, and bad intentions everywhere, in all people, and in all places.

More studies are demonstrating the lack of necessity for training programs that are based on presuppositions about the inner lives of individuals who belong to specific demographic groups, regardless of whether these presuppositions are positive or negative. On January 26, 2021, a study was published which revealed a surprising pattern around racial attitudes in white people. It was discovered, implementing the commonly used measuring rubric, the Racial Resentment Scale (RRS) that—contrary to popular conceptions— whites favor Blacks “substantially” more than their own in-group (whites) far more than was previously known. This indicates that more work needs to be done in understanding the complex dynamics of inter-group trust and collaboration and that the “trainings” that are introduced into communities and companies that wish to be seen as addressing Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion might need to be integrated with a less ideological stance than the current offerings.

To put it more simply, if research is showing that white workers—especially in largely progressive environments—tend to disfavor their own in-group and “substantially” favor people from the out-groups (people of color), then in the best possible circumstances, these trainings are redundant.

If a workplace wants to be seen as on the cutting edge of being deeply inclusive, diverse and equity oriented, then the organization needs to recognize and integrate the findings of these studies. Being up to date on the research can help organizations to re-evaluate the effectiveness and legitimacy of programs that have been designed to enhance workplaces towards maximum harmony, mutual respect and productivity and away from strife, abuse and breakdown. In doing so, managers and leaders will find that workplace and educational training programs and larger cultural movements that are based on group identity essentialism—with its attendant behavioral attitudes and consequent endorsement of social hierarchies among those who have taken on those essentialist beliefs—are often not only ineffective and unnecessary, but also actively harmful.

It’s the active harm that these training programs can potentially bring to groups of people that needs to be addressed, especially in light of the proliferation of group identity theories in the media, education, government, activist communities, non profit organizations, corporations, and religious communities. With the accompanying spread of group identity essentialism in all these areas of society, the outcomes of these trainings on society as a whole are more deserving of our attention and careful study than ever before." (https://groundexperience.substack.com/p/training-in-cynicism)

Discussion 2: Analysis from the [[Free Speech Union

What is Unconscious Bias Training and how does it relate to the Implicit Association Test?

Free Speech Union:

"Unconscious Bias Training (UBT) is also known as Anti-Bias or Implicit Bias Training. Anti-Racism Training is a highly ideological form of UBT described here. The creators of the IAT initially claimed that widespread implicit bias was responsible for the remaining disparities in outcome between racial groups. They stated that:[G]iven the relatively small proportion of people who are overtly prejudiced and how clearly it is established that automatic race preference predicts discrimination, it is reasonable to conclude not only that implicit bias is a cause of Black disadvantage but also that it plausibly plays a greater role than does explicit bias in explaining the discrimination that contributes to Black disadvantage.’51 As we have discussed, there is little evidence to support the assertion that ‘automatic race preference predicts discrimination’ (discussed here) or that implicit prejudices play a more significant role in discrimination than explicit ones (discussed here). Nonetheless, informed by this understanding UBT identifies implicit bias as contributing to ongoing racial inequality. UBT aims to train people to recognise and reduce their levels of implicit bias. Taking an IAT is sometimes, but not always, part of UBT.

Is Unconscious Bias Training ideologically motivated?

UBT varies considerably by provider. Some trainings are heavily influenced by ideological beliefs and questionable science. Others are less ideologically motivated and are less reliant on implicit bias as a scientific concept.

Critical Race Theory: The belief that implicit, unconscious prejudice is a driver of modern racial inequality is central to the controversial academic discipline of critical race theory (CRT). You can read more about CRT here. Robin DiAngelo, a leading CRT scholar, has been described as ‘the... most visible expert in anti-bias training’.52 Anti-Racism Training is a specific type of UBT incorporating the ideas of CRT and often relies on contested concepts of ‘whiteness,’ ‘privilege,’ ‘oppression’ and ‘white fragility’. UBT that is heavily influenced by the disputed ideas of CRT can be highly ideological in nature, but not all UBT incorporates CRT. UBT is a profitable industry: The UBT industry earns tens of billions of dollars a year53 and leading anti-bias trainers like Robin DiAngelo charge as much as $20,000 per session.54 UBT has been successfully marketed as a way for employers to meet their obligations under the Equality Act 2020 and create more welcoming and racially diverse work environments. UBT has become common place in many organisations. But as is explained here, there is no evidence to suggest that UBT is effective in making workplaces more racially diverse, and some evidence that it is actively counterproductive. It is worth acknowledging that companies marketing UBT may be financially motivated to promote the view that reducing implicit bias is a valid and effective approach to diversity. Lack of expertise: UBT instructors are generally not trained in psychological science, although they often advertise their courses as supported by scientific evidence. They are frequently unaware of the second generation of IAT research, which discredited the test’s initial findings about racial prejudice. Some claim that the validity of the IAT is irrelevant to the utility of UBT. Instead, their trainings emphasise the importance of understanding in-group favouritism and the effect of implicit associations on decision making more generally. Many UBT providers sincerely believe that reducing implicit bias is a valid approach to building a better society. This should be recognised and respected as a valid ideological belief, but other people should not come under pressure to endorse it if it is in conflict with their own principled beliefs.

How does Unconscious Bias Training work?

This section explores some of the common themes in UBT, but training is offered by many different providers and will vary accordingly. You can find links to articles about people’s experiences of UBT here.

Introducing the concept of Implicit Bias: UBT commonly introduces the concept of implicit bias as an invisible process of thought. According to UBT, this unconscious thought process constantly impacts our behaviour, perpetuating prejudice without our conscious awareness. Fatalistic, subjective assertions like, ‘We are all biased. We can’t help it’ are often presented as undisputable facts. Based on an unsupported claim – that unconscious prejudice effects important real-world events55 – UBT frequently identifies implicit bias as a major unrecognised factor in workplace discrimination. UBT often states that it is essential for businesses to reduce implicit bias in order to be diverse and welcoming to minorities. You can read more about the validity of this claim here. Awareness raising: UBT’s central technique for reducing implicit bias is awareness raising. Participants are told that they have a responsibility to work at recognising implicit bias and must actively compensate for its influence at all times. You can read more about the impact of cultivating this state of hyper-awareness in the workplace here and its validity as a means of reducing implicit bias here. Perception is suspect: Many people are sceptical of the idea that our behaviour is largely controlled by unconscious influences. Our justice system assigns responsibility according to intent and we are not used to excusing prejudiced behaviour on the basis of uncontrollable subconscious impulses. Discrimination is usually recognised as a conscious decision indicative of poor character, and we hold individuals accountable for choosing to behave in prejudiced ways. UBT may try to address this scepticism by claiming that human perception is inherently inaccurate. Some trainings use optical illusions as evidence that our brains sometimes perceive things incorrectly. However, as discussed here and here, there is a considerable difference between recognising that our minds associate concepts in memory, sometimes inaccurately, and the value judgement that this signifies implicit racial prejudice. Establishing positionality: Anti-Racism Training or UBT heavily influenced by Critical Race Theory may employ variations on an exercise called the ‘Privilege Walk’. This aims to demonstrate the invisible forces of ‘privilege’ and ‘oppression’ that CRT identifies as the dominant powers in society. In the context of UBT, it could be thought of as a visual representation of participants’ levels of perceived implicit bias and an effort to achieve the core aim of awareness raising described here.56 Participants form a line in the middle of the room all facing in one direction. Statements like the following are read out:– If you went to university take one step forward.– If you come from a broken home take one step backward.– If you have experienced discrimination on the basis of your race take one step backward.– If your parents were white collar professionals take one step forward.You can read a more complete list here.By the end of the exercise people CRT identifies as ‘privileged’ will be standing on one side of the room and people identified as ‘oppressed’ will be on the other. The division often appears to reflect the racial disparities we see in society more broadly.In highly ideological Anti-Racism Training there may be a very clear attribution of virtue to the ‘oppressed’ group and wrongdoing to the ‘privileged’ group, regardless of the intentions or experiences of the individuals concerned. These characterisations may exacerbate divisive thinking and cause resentment, as described here. A black participant who has overcome adversity may justifiably resent being labelled ‘oppressed’. Equally, a white participant labelled ‘privileged’ may feel that this minimises their own experiences of adversity. In both cases, the statements used in exercises like the Privilege Walk attempt to divide people into homogenous identity categories that usually fail to reflect the diverse experiences and views of the individuals composing them.This process is sometimes referred to as ‘establishing positionality’ in Critical Social Justice literature. Anti-Racism Training may ask participants to reflect deeply on their positionality, identify times when they benefited from ‘privilege’ at the expense of inflicting ‘oppression’ on marginalised groups and, in extreme cases, require ‘privileged’ participants to apologise to those identified as ‘oppressed’, ostensibly to reduce levels of implicit racial prejudice.57 It is important to note that not all UBT incorporates these controversial ideas.

Questioning your biases:

UBT often sets participants self-reflection questions like:– Do you believe you judge people based on their physical appearance?– Do you like to think of yourself as a fair person? Of course, most people try not to judge others on their physical appearance and like to think of themselves as fair. While it is important to reflect on ways to avoid unnecessary rudeness or insensitivity, in many ways these are trick questions. If a participant says they are a fair person who doesn’t judge others on their appearance, then they are not recognising that they are implicitly biased in the way that UBT dictates. In the terms of UBT, they risk unconsciously perpetuating prejudice by refusing to acknowledge their implicit bias. On the other hand, if a participant says they are not a fair person who does judge others based on their appearance then they are following the model of UBT correctly, even if they have just outed themselves as an explicitly prejudiced person. In this case, addressing the participant’s openly expressed bigotry would appear to be more important than interrogating his unconscious attitudes. The true role of self-reflection questions like these in UBT is to remind participants that implicit bias is omnipresent and perpetuates prejudice regardless of our consciously held intentions. Stereotypes: UBT typically involves a discussion of what stereotypes are and how they can contribute to discrimination. UBT often positions implicit bias as a factor in creating negative stereotypes and argues that discriminatory behaviour is linked to unconscious acceptance of stereotypical beliefs. Some UBT explains the concepts of in and out-group empathy. This is one of the less controversial areas of UBT. Belief in and explicit endorsement of racially prejudiced stereotypes are reliable indicators of racist behaviour (see here). However, as discussed here, the extent to which this is a result of implicit or unconscious thought is uncertain. Additionally, there is some evidence that UBT may reinforce racial stereotypes, as described here.

==Microaggressions:== UBT sometimes claims that implicit bias can manifest in the workplace in the form of microaggressions.

Microaggressions have been defined as:

‘brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color’.

In the context of UBT, microaggressions are usually characterised as unconscious behaviours that demonstrate the presence of unrecognised implicit prejudice. Examples of microaggressions range from actions widely recognised as insensitive or impolite (like demanding to know where someone is ‘really from’) to more subjective interactions that are arguably open to interpretation (like complimenting a black person on their eloquence).59 This list of microaggressions contains examples from both extremes of the spectrum.

The degree of significance attached to microaggressions varies considerably between UBT providers and some trainings do not mention microaggressions at all. Anti-Racism Training or UBT marketed by advocates of CRT is likely to place greater ideological emphasis on microaggressions. Taking the IAT: Some UBT asks participants to sit an IAT. As we have discussed here, the IAT is poorly regarded as a psychological test. However, in UBT it is used to highlight to participants the supposed omnipresence of implicit bias and to encourage them to recognise that they have prejudices they are not consciously aware of. Techniques for reducing implicit bias: UBT advises participants to interrogate their intuitive assumptions for evidence of implicit bias before making decisions. Some trainings recommend techniques for slowing down your thought process to facilitate this. You can read about the validity of implicit bias reduction techniques here. But, as explained here, the central technique recommended by UBT is to cultivate perpetual awareness of your unconscious prejudice by continually scrutinising your thought process for evidence of its existence. Accepting Feedback: Some UBT also encourages participants to call out perceived expressions of implicit bias in colleagues, which is sometimes referred to as being an ‘ethical bystander’. This is arguably given more emphasis in UBT influenced by Critical Race Theory.In this context, UBT sometimes advises participants that they must accept ‘feedback’ on their implicit prejudices entirely uncritically. Denying an accusation of implicit bias is sometimes regarded as refusing to acknowledge your role in unconsciously perpetuating prejudice. If UBT is heavily influenced by the ideology of CRT, this may be combined with the view that members of identity groups seen as ‘privileged’ are not entitled to question the experiences of ‘oppressed’ identity groups, or their perception of whether a particular incident was motivated by subconscious prejudice. Doing so may be labelled ‘gaslighting’ and identified as perpetuating oppressive systems of power. Ironically, this view was epitomised by the reaction of IAT creator Mahzarin Banaji when Jesse Singal asked her about the growing evidence that the IAT is not a valid psychological test. She claimed that the implicit bias paradigm is only criticised by: ‘a small group of aggrieved individuals who think that Black people have it easy in American society and that the IAT work might make their lives easier’.In other words, it is Banaji’s view that the concept of implicit bias is only criticised by racists.60 This kind of circular reasoning is extremely common in Anti-Racism Training and UBT informed by Critical Race Theory and is sometimes referred to as ‘Kafka trapping’. Bias spotting exercises: UBT often concludes with an exercise where participants are asked to spot implicit bias in workplace interactions. In examples such as choosing between candidates for a job or putting ideas forward at a meeting, participants must identify where implicit bias is presumed to be causing discriminatory outcomes.

Does Unconscious Bias Training reduce implicit prejudice and racial discrimination at work?

There is little evidence suggesting that it does and, worryingly, some indication that UBT may increase division and hinder effective communication in the workplace. It is legitimate to question whether UBT represents a worthwhile investment for organisations genuinely seeking to reduce racial discrimination. Implicit bias appears to explain only a fraction of discriminatory behaviour: The most generous studies find that implicit bias, as it is understood in the context of IAT and UBT, accounts for about 4% of discriminatory behaviour in lab settings. Under meta-analysis this figure falls to 1%. Even if we accept that implicit bias is a factor in racial discrimination, it does not account for between 96-99% of observable prejudice. UBT therefore appears to be an inefficient target of intervention for employers seeking to reduce racial discrimination.62 Targeting implicit attitudes is ineffective: UBT is of course heavily premised on the idea that reducing levels of implicit bias is a vital way for organisations to measurably reduce the impact of racial prejudice. If it were true that businesses could reduce racism by employing UBT there would be a strong case for its use in the workplace. Unfortunately, ‘Robust data is lacking for many of these interventions’63 according to Fitzgerald. The poor reliability of the IAT, explained here, makes it hard to establish if a reduction in implicit bias signifies a change in an individual’s implicit beliefs, or is simply a reflection of the test’s poor test-retest reliability. Additionally, the small number of studies demonstrating that it is possible to change levels of implicit bias show that reductions are minimal, short term and do not lead to a reduction in real-world discriminatory behaviour.64 Forscher summarises his meta-analysis of unconscious bias reduction techniques as follows: ‘Based on the evidence that is currently available I’d say that we cannot claim that implicit bias is a useful target of intervention.’

Racial disparities persist in companies who have invested in UBT:

Racial disparities continue to be evident in organisations where UBT has been deployed, discrediting the core claim that training in implicit bias creates diverse workplaces. Firms like Pinterest and Google have made huge investments in UBT and related diversity initiatives, but society wide patterns of unequal racial representation continue to be reflected in the makeup of their workforces.66 This may be a consequence of the fact that implicit bias, and by extension the UBT that aims to reduce it, is found to be such a small factor in real world discriminatory behaviour, as described here. Targeting implicit bias may distract from addressing other causes of prejudice: As pointed out by Jesse Singal, explicit racial prejudice, openly expressed through pejorative racial stereotypes, is often found in organisations where racial discrimination is a problem. He gives the example of Ferguson police department. Following the police shooting of Michael Brown, an unarmed black man, federal investigators found that: ‘Ferguson’s harmful court and police practices are due, at least in part, to intentional discrimination, as demonstrated by direct 20evidence of racial bias and stereotyping about African Americans by certain Ferguson police and municipal court officials.’ Singal goes on to suggest that focusing on invisible, implicit prejudice as advocated by boosters of UBT may distract from frankly confronting explicitly racist behaviour. Science reporter Olivia Goldhill further theorises that blaming implicit impulses for racially prejudiced behaviour risks minimising the responsibility of individuals to behave in ethical ways."

(https://freespeechunion.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/Unconscious-Bias-Training.pdf)

More information

• Implicit Association Testing