Self-reported receptivity to anti-discrimination training fails to measure real behavioral change.

Evidence

Our experience working with stakeholders in the CJS has suggested that insights from cognitive science have the potential to catalyze transformation of policies and practices linked to racial equity. We conduct post-workshop evaluations that indicate an understanding of the concepts, receptivity to engaging in the interventions suggested, and an internal motivation to address discrimination in general. While we find those measures generally positive, in our view, they are not sufficient to ensure that this approach is truly having outcome-relevant effects. Going forward, we are planning to engage in methodologically rigorous empirical study of this work rather than relying upon anecdotal information and the self-reports of evaluations. — Joseph Avery, Jim Sidanius, Joel Cooper, Gregory Davis, Amanda N., Bias in the Law, 1413

Categorization

• XREF: Directly instantiates the reader’s conviction-vs-behavior divergence: warm post-training self-reports are acknowledged to not predict outcome-relevant effects. — connects to: Anti-bias training works only when it solves frontline work problems — Michael Lipsky, Street-Level Bureaucracy: Dilemmas of…, 845
• QUESTION: This is an authored admission that attitude surveys after bias trainings cannot validate outcomes — worth chasing the actual empirical studies they plan.
• 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…, 1413