Bias trainings change self-reported knowledge but rarely alter behavior

Evidence

From this set of contrasting findings, the clearest lesson is that evaluative methods should align with the goals of the trainings, and participant selfreport is an inadequate measure of efficacy. Often, self-reports of success are the primary metric—even though the goals of the work are behavioral (Kalinoski et al., 2013). A related pitfall is for trainings to focus on cognitive learning when the goal is attitudinal and behavioral change. Bezrukova and colleagues’ (2016) meta-analytic analysis of over 260 studies across a 40-year period found primarily cognitive learning effects, with less impact on behavioral and attitudinal domains, and those gains decreased or disappeared over time while participants were more likely to maintain the cognitive gains. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1415

Categorization

• QUESTION: This evidence that professed/self-reported gains diverge from measured behavioral change aligns directly with the reader’s conviction-vs-measured-bias research thread.
• XREF: Connects to the reader’s broader interest in the sincere-conviction-vs-measured-bias gap and to the Frankfurt School finding that professed egalitarian/left conviction did not predict actual anti-authoritarian behavior. — connects to: Anti-bias training works only when it solves frontline work problems — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 845
• corroborated: 2 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1415