Habit-breaking bias interventions change awareness more than they reduce bias

Evidence

Most implicit bias trainings move from providing information about what implicit bias is to general strategies that can be used to reduce bias or mitigate its behavioral effects. While the information about implicit bias and identifying strategies that can be used may raise awareness about the issue, research suggests that this awareness is not sufficient to lead to behavior change (Lai et al., 2017). In addition, those who work with Perception Institute hold the concern that concluding a workshop with merely generic interventions may actually exacerbate the effects of race and ethnicity differences. … As noted in the introduction, it is our theory of change that institutions must grapple simultaneously with implicit bias, “identity anxiety,” and stereotype threat and that the interventions must be carefully tailored to the decision points and consequential interactions that are most critical. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1369 (#corroborates, via linked claim)

Cognitive neuroscience evidence suggests that the process of control involves two mechanisms, each associated with activity in separate neural structures (e.g., Botvinick et al., 1999). The first is a conflict detection system, which monitors ongoing responses and is sensitive to competition between automatic and consciously intended responses. The conflict detection system, which has been associated with activity in the anterior cingulate cortex (ACC), is constantly active, requires few resources, and may operate below the level of awareness. When the ACC detects con- flict, it alerts a second, resource-dependent system designed to inhibit unintended responses and replace them with intended responses. This regulatory system has been shown to involve prefrontal cortical activity. Amodio et al. (2004) found that good regulators were more effective at responding without race bias than poor regulators, and that this difference was mediated by the sensitivity of the conflict detection system’s response to race-biased tendencies (i.e., responses indicative of differences in ACC activity). That is, good regulators were more sensitive to the fact that their automatically activated stereotypes were at odds with their intended nonstereotypic responses and they were more efficient in recruiting controlled processes online as the response unfolded. Because the ACC operates automatically, these findings suggest that mechanisms of control are set in motion very early in the response stream and do not necessarily require conscious appraisals for the engagement of control. In this case, “putting the brakes on prejudice” involves preconscious mechanisms which both detect the potential for failure and recruit the needed controlled processes to avert biased responses and replace them with intended responses. — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2111 (#complicates, via linked claim)

Categorization

• XREF: connects to: Bias awareness alone does not change behavior and can backfire; Bias-reduction training shifts awareness and action more than measured implicit bias itself — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1369; Bias trainings change self-reported knowledge but rarely alter behavior — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1415 (+5 more)

Broader Connections

• Bias-reduction training shifts awareness and action more than measured implicit bias itself #corroborates (0.92) — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1369
• Unconscious conflict detection recruits deliberate regulation before any awareness of bias #complicates (0.74) — John F. Dovidio, Peter Glick, Laurie A. Rudman, On the Nature of Prejudice, 2111