There are a wide variety of implicit bias training programs, but the programs tend to follow a basic three-step method: • Participants take a pretest to assess baseline implicit bias levels (typically with the IAT). • They complete the implicit bias training task. • They take a post-test to re-evaluate bias levels after training. Frequently, follow-up tests of implicit bias are administered days, weeks, or months after the completion of training programs to examine the long-term benefits of these programs. It is still uncertain whether these programs are effective or not as researchers continue to test them.
Counterstereotype According to a
meta-analysis of 17 implicit bias interventions,
counterstereotype training is the most effective way to reduce implicit bias. In the area of gender bias, techniques such as imagining powerful women, hearing their stories, and writing essays about them have been shown to reduce levels of implicit gender bias on the IAT. Dasgupta and Asagari (2004) found that real-life counterstereotypes, such as going to a women's college or having female professors, can decrease bias because the idea that women are intelligent and hard-working is repeatedly reinforced. Regarding racial bias, several studies have replicated the finding that training participants to pair counterstereotypical traits such as "successful" with images of black individuals is an effective tool for reducing implicit racial bias. Kawakami, Dovido, and Van Kamp (2005) challenged the effectiveness of counterstereotype training when they found that participants actually showed an increase in gender bias after training. Rather than using the IAT to assess levels of implicit bias, the researchers asked participants to read a resume and decide if the applicant was qualified for a leadership job because "when ambiguity exists in an individual's qualifications or competence, evaluators will fill the void with assumptions drawn from gender stereotypes". The participants received one of four resumes describing equally qualified candidates. The only difference between the four resumes was the applicant's name—two had female names and two had male names. When participants were administered the job application task immediately following counterstereotype training, they were more likely to pick the male candidates over the female candidates, making it appear that the counterstereotype training was ineffective. However, when the researchers added a distractor task between the counterstereotype training and the job application task, participants selected male and female candidates at an equal rate. When participants had to engage in a cognitive task while simultaneously selecting a candidate, they were more likely to select female applicants. The researchers did a follow-up study with a slightly different procedure to determine why bias was increased in some conditions and decreased in others. They followed the same counterstereotype training procedure but divided the job application task into two distinct parts. Participants were either asked to first pick the best candidate for the job and then rank each candidate on sixteen traits (half were female stereotypes and the other half were male stereotypes) or they were asked to complete the tasks in the opposite order. Regardless of the order, participants consistently were biased against women in the first task, but not in the second task. The researchers hypothesized that the participants were able to discern that the purpose of the study was to reduce gender bias, so they showed an increased bias in the first task to compensate for the researcher's attempt to influence their behaviors. Further research is necessary to determine why participants showed decreased bias on the second task and if the decrease has an enduring effect. Hu and colleagues (2015) created a form of counterstereotype training to unlearn implicit bias while sleeping. However, Gawronski, Deutsch, Mbirkou, Seibt, and Strack (2006) hypothesized that negation training was not only ineffective but could actually strengthen implicit biases. They stated that Kawakami and colleagues only produced positive results because when the participants responded, "YES" to stereotype-inconsistent word-picture pairings, they were using counterstereotyping rather than negation. To test these claims, the researchers created separate counterstereotype and negation conditions. The counterstereotype condition was instructed to press "YES" for stereotype-inconsistent information, while the negation condition was told to press "NO" for stereotype-consistent information. The results showed that the counterstereotype condition decreased implicit bias, but the negation condition increased bias. A possible explanation for the increase in bias with negation training is the level of control required during memory retrieval. During negation training, the memory of a previously held stereotype is activated and then you have to purposefully reject the meaning of the memory. The participants were repeatedly activating the memory of the stereotype, which made it stronger, and they were not able to replace the stereotype with a positive counterstereotype. Alternatively, in counterstereotyping, you do not have to exhibit control to reject a memory because a new and separate memory for stereotype-inconsistent information is formed. Recently, Johnson, Kopp, and Petty (2018) attempted to reconcile the discrepant results of the previous research. They argued the negation was not meaningful and participants were not adequately motivated to get rid of their implicit biases. The researchers introduced a condition in which participants were told to think, "that's wrong!" in response to stereotype-consistent information. Other participants were told, instead, to continue to use the typical form of negation and simply responded "no" to stereotype-consistent information. The researchers hypothesized that "no" is an ambiguous and weak response to stereotypes, but "that's wrong!" is a specific and morally tied response that is hard to ignore. When participants were told to think, "that's wrong!" in response to stereotype-consistent information, there was a decrease in implicit bias that was not observed in the condition that simply thought "no". Additionally, the researchers discovered that motivation plays a role in the effectiveness of implicit bias training programs. After the negation training tasks, participants took the Motivation to Control for Prejudiced Reactions Scale (MCPR) to measure the participants' drive to change their implicit biases. People who scored particularly high on the MCPR showed reduced bias regardless of the condition. Therefore, if people feel determined to reduce their implicit biases and think "that's wrong" rather than "no," negation training shows promising results for decreasing implicit racial bias. Typically, perspective-taking studies follow a three-step procedure. First, participants are exposed to the target minority group by watching a video that displays examples of racial discrimination or by viewing a photograph of an individual from the target minority group. Then participants are told to reflect on that person's life and their emotions or imagine themselves as the main character. A separate control group watches the same movie or views the same photograph, but they are not given any additional instructions involving perspective-taking. Lastly, participants’ biases are reassessed by answering questionnaires, retaking IAT, or engaging in specific tasks. This prototypical form of perspective-taking has been shown to effectively reduce racial bias.
Dovidio and colleagues (2004) found that a diverse group of strangers can come together as a unified group if they believe they share a common threat. Stimulating a perceived common threat can reduce bias because people are less likely to be biased against members of their own group.Kaatz and colleagues (2017) had participants play a video game where they are the character Jamal, a Black graduate student, working towards a degree in science. Throughout the game, players had to complete tasks such as selecting an advisor, attending conferences, and publishing papers. During each task, the players experienced hardships due to racial discrimination and learned about implicit bias. In order to successfully complete the game, players had to be able to learn how to recognize, label, and talk about bias. After completing the game, participants filled out surveys about their experiences. Most participants agreed that it was an effective strategy for reducing implicit bias. Further research is necessary to objectively measure the effectiveness of the game.
Meditation Meditation has become integrated into a variety of Western therapeutic practices due to its benefits of enhanced well-being, reduced depression and anxiety, and overall mood improvement. In 2008, meditation was incorporated into implicit bias training using
Lovingkindness meditation (LKM), which "aims to self-regulate an affective state of unconditional kindness towards the self and others". Stell and Farsides (2016) found that after only seven minutes of LMK, implicit racial bias for a targeted group was reduced.
Implicit bias workshops Implicit bias workshops often employ a range of strategies designed to mitigate implicit biases. Devine, Forscher, Austin, and Cox (2012) have devised a workshop that incorporates five distinct techniques to address bias: stereotype replacement, counterstereotype training, individualism, perspective taking, and increased exposure to minority groups. According to Gonzales, Kim, and Marantz (2014), the recognition of bias cannot be taught in a single session. Researchers have thus created workshops or class curriculums that span days, semesters, or even years. Hannah and Carpenter-Song (2013) created a semester-long course that focuses on
introspection. Students are encouraged to look within themselves to examine their own biases, values, and most importantly, blind spots. During each class, students discuss articles about various forms of bias and participate in interactive exercises that are designed to promote perspective-taking and empathy. Tests of the course showed that students who have an active interest in learning about issues of implicit bias were able to successfully reduce their levels of bias. However, a subset of the students did not reduce bias or even showed an increased bias after the course because the program was mandatory and they were not incentivized to change their thoughts and behaviors. == Criticisms ==