Implicit bias trainings rarely produce meaningful behavioral change

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. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1369

In spite of technology’s potential for bias, we nonetheless believe that the proper use of technology can help correct for the human biases that have plagued the criminal justice system (CJS). First, racial bias can be either explicit or implicit. Broadly, we might say that explicit racial bias refers to consciously held racial attitudes, while implicit racial bias refers to racial attitudes that are less readily available to introspection. Given that explicit racial bias triggers equal protection concerns, individuals working in public settings are relatively unlikely to reveal explicit racial bias. Thus, most interventions focus on what is less conscious and less visible: implicit bias. But implicit bias interventions have shown limited efficacy. A recent meta-analysis found that, while some changes in implicit bias can be achieved through interventions (at least in the short term), most interventions do not work. Of those that do, the change in implicit bias is generally small, and any subsequent change in behavior is negligible (Forscher et al., 2019). — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1168

Categorization

• SEED: The finding that generic anti-bias interventions can backfire — a strong angle for an essay on why corporate diversity training fails and what actually moves the needle.
• XREF: Parallels the well-documented finding that mandatory diversity training can increase bias (Dobbin & Kalev) — same thesis from a different research tradition. — connects to: Anti-bias training works only when it solves frontline work problems — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 845
• DEFINE: Defines the explicit-implicit bias distinction that anchors the whole chapter.
• ADDENDUM: Relevant to all three published essays’ shared theme of measured-versus-professed behavior gaps, though most directly serves the reader’s stated purpose on bias correction limits.
• corroborated: 6 independent passages support this claim — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1369; Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law: A Definitive Look at…, 1168