Implicit Bias and the Fragmented Mind

2021 ◽  
pp. 303-324
Author(s):  
Josefa Toribio
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Parsimonious Explanation ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

This chapter discusses the strengths and weaknesses of the belief fragmentation thesis vis-à-vis the attitudinal dissonance illustrated by implicit biases. It argues that, depending on the notion of belief at hand, the fragmentation strategy faces a dilemma: either it is a mere restatement of the phenomena it is intended to explain (when belief is understood in non-reductive, dispositional terms) or, when apparently successful, the explanatory grip on the dissonance comes from the notion of access, not fragmentation (when beliefs are understood as representations stored in the mind). More positively, it argues that a representational, contextualist, non-fragmentationalist, and affect-laden account of the dissonance between implicit and explicit biases provides a more plausible and parsimonious explanation of the target phenomenon than fragmentationalism.

scholarly journals Facing One’s Implicit Biases: From Awareness to Acknowledgment

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Adam Hahn ◽  
Bertram Gawronski
Keyword(s):  
Minority Groups ◽  
Minority Group ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Affective Reactions ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
Explicit Bias ◽  
Group Members ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

Expanding on conflicting theoretical conceptualizations of implicit bias, six studies tested the effectiveness of different procedures to increase acknowledgment of harboring biases against minorities. Participants who predicted their responses towards pictures of various minority groups on future IATs showed increased alignment between implicit and explicit preferences (Studies 1-3), greater levels of explicit bias (Studies 1-3), and increased self-reported acknowledgment of being racially biased (Studies 4-6). In all studies, effects of IAT score prediction on acknowledgment were significant even when participants did not actually complete IATs. Effects of predicting IAT scores were moderated by non-prejudicial goals, in that IAT score prediction increased acknowledgment of bias for participants with strong non-prejudicial goals, but not for participants with weak non-prejudicial goals (Study 4). Mere completion of IATs and feedback on IAT performance had inconsistent effects across studies and criterion measures. Instructions to attend to one’s spontaneous affective reactions toward minority group members increased acknowledgment of bias to the same extent as IAT score prediction (Study 6). The findings are consistent with conceptualizations suggesting that (1) implicit evaluations are consciously experienced as spontaneous affective reactions and (2) directing people’s attention to their spontaneous affective reactions can increase acknowledgment of bias. Implications for theoretical conceptualizations of implicit bias and interventions that aim to reduce discrimination via increased acknowledgment of bias are discussed.

scholarly journals Six Lessons for a Cogent Science of Implicit Bias and Its Criticism

2019 ◽  
Vol 14 (4) ◽  
pp. 574-595 ◽  
Author(s):  
Bertram Gawronski
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Implicit Measures ◽  
Social Discrimination ◽  
Implicit Measurement ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
Explicit Bias ◽  
Current Article ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
And Behavior ◽  
Over Time

Skepticism about the explanatory value of implicit bias in understanding social discrimination has grown considerably. The current article argues that both the dominant narrative about implicit bias as well as extant criticism are based on a selective focus on particular findings that fails to consider the broader literature on attitudes and implicit measures. To provide a basis to move forward, the current article discusses six lessons for a cogent science of implicit bias: (a) There is no evidence that people are unaware of the mental contents underlying their implicit biases; (b) conceptual correspondence is essential for interpretations of dissociations between implicit and explicit bias; (c) there is no basis to expect strong unconditional relations between implicit bias and behavior; (d) implicit bias is less (not more) stable over time than explicit bias; (e) context matters fundamentally for the outcomes obtained with implicit-bias measures; and (f) implicit measurement scores do not provide process-pure reflections of bias. The six lessons provide guidance for research that aims to provide more compelling evidence for the properties of implicit bias. At the same time, they suggest that extant criticism does not justify the conclusion that implicit bias is irrelevant for the understanding of social discrimination.

An investigation of implicit bias about bending and lifting

2021 ◽  
Vol 0 (0) ◽  
Author(s):  
Roberto Costa Krug ◽  
Marcelo Faria Silva ◽  
Ottmar V. Lipp ◽  
Peter B. O’Sullivan ◽  
Rosicler Almeida ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Back Pain ◽  
Free Group ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Middle Income Country ◽  
Income Country ◽  
Middle Income ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
History Of ◽  
Implicit And Explicit ◽  
Explicit Measures

Abstract Objectives Previous studies in a high-income country have demonstrated that people with and without low back pain (LBP) have an implicit bias that bending and lifting with a flexed lumbar spine is dangerous. These studies present two key limitations: use of a single group per study; people who recovered from back pain were not studied. Our aims were to evaluate: implicit biases between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting in people who are pain-free, have a history of LBP or have current LBP in a middle-income country, and to explore correlations between implicit and explicit measures within groups. Methods Exploratory cross-sectional study including 174 participants (63 pain-free, 57 with history of LBP and 54 with current LBP). Implicit biases between back posture and safety related to bending and lifting were assessed with the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Participants completed paper-based (Bending Safety Belief [BSB]) and online questionnaires (Tampa Scale of Kinesiophobia; Back Pain Attitudes Questionnaire). Results Participants displayed significant implicit bias between images of round-back bending and lifting and words representing “danger” (IATD-SCORE: Pain-free group: 0.56 (IQR=0.31–0.91; 95% CI [0.47, 0.68]); history of LBP group: 0.57 (IQR=0.34–0.84; 95% CI [0.47, 0.67]); current LBP group: 0.56 (IQR=0.24–0.80; 95% CI [0.39, 0.64])). Explicit measures revealed participants hold unhelpful beliefs about the back, perceiving round-back bending and lifting as dangerous (BSBthermometer: Pain-free group: 8 (IQR=7–10; 95% CI [7.5, 8.5]); history of LBP group: 8 (IQR=7–10; 95% CI [7.5, 9.0]); current LBP group: 8.5 (IQR=6.75–10; [7.5, 9.0])). There was no correlation between implicit and explicit measures within the groups. Conclusions In a middle-income country, people with and without LBP, and those who recovered from LBP have an implicit bias that round-back bending and lifting is dangerous.

Reply to Connor and Evers (2020): Critique of the Bias of Crowds Model Simply Restates the Model

2020 ◽  
Author(s):  
Keith Payne ◽  
Heidi A. Vuletich ◽  
Kristjen B. Lundberg
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Group Level ◽  
Systemic Racism ◽  
Individual Level ◽  
The Core ◽  
Psychological Science ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
The Individual

The Bias of Crowds model (Payne, Vuletich, & Lundberg, 2017) argues that implicit bias varies across individuals and across contexts. It is unreliable and weakly associated with behavior at the individual level. But when aggregated to measure context-level effects, the scores become stable and predictive of group-level outcomes. We concluded that the statistical benefits of aggregation are so powerful that researchers should reconceptualize implicit bias as a feature of contexts, and ask new questions about how implicit biases relate to systemic racism. Connor and Evers (2020) critiqued the model, but their critique simply restates the core claims of the model. They agreed that implicit bias varies across individuals and across contexts; that it is unreliable and weakly associated with behavior at the individual level; and that aggregating scores to measure context-level effects makes them more stable and predictive of group-level outcomes. Connor and Evers concluded that implicit bias should be considered to really be noisily measured individual construct because the effects of aggregation are merely statistical. We respond to their specific arguments and then discuss what it means to really be a feature of persons versus situations, and multilevel measurement and theory in psychological science more broadly.

scholarly journals 136. In Their Own words: a Qualitative Analysis of Factors Contributing to Gender Bias in Academic Advancement in Infectious Disease

2020 ◽  
Vol 7 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. S198-S198
Author(s):  
Wendy Stead ◽  
Jennifer Manne-Goehler ◽  
Jasmine R Marcelin ◽  
Carlos Del Rio ◽  
Douglas Krakower
Keyword(s):  
Focus Group ◽  
Focus Groups ◽  
Gender Bias ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Faculty Members ◽  
Full Professor ◽  
Major Theme ◽  
Academic Advancement ◽  
Assistant Professors ◽  
Implicit And Explicit

Abstract Background Large and persistent inequities in academic advancement exist between men and women faculty in academic Infectious Diseases (ID). To identify and characterize beliefs about why these inequities persist in ID, we asked ID faculty members to share their thoughts and experiences with the advancement process. Characteristics of Focus Group Participants Summary of Main Emergent Themes from Focus Group Analysis Methods We conducted four 60-minute focus groups with ID faculty members during IDWeek 2019. We enrolled women that were diverse geographically and in academic rank (i.e., Instructor/Assistant, Associate, Full Professor). We assigned women to focus groups by rank to minimize social desirability bias across rank. Our fourth focus group included only men who were Full Professors, to capture additional perspectives about barriers to advancement and solutions. (Table 1) We analyzed focus group discussion transcripts using content analysis. Results We identified nine main themes regarding inequities in academic advancement of women in ID. (Table 2) In all 4 focus groups, gender bias as a barrier to academic advancement was a major theme. Women Full Professors emphasized explicit gender bias such as sexual harassment and “predatory mentoring,” whereas women Instructors/Assistant Professors more frequently cited barriers related to implicit bias, such as obscure maternity leave policies and divisional meetings scheduled during childcare hours. Women Associate Professors cited implicit and explicit gender bias, while men Full Professors focused primarily on implicit bias. Women Instructors/Assistant Professors experienced the greatest difficulty in balancing demands of family with career, though this was a prominent theme in all groups. The perception that women less often utilize negotiation to advance themselves was a dominant theme for women Associate Professors, though all groups raised examples of this theme. Conclusion Gender bias, both implicit and explicit, is an important and ongoing barrier to equitable academic advancement of women in ID. Difficulty balancing demands of family with career and gender differences in professional negotiation are also perceived barriers that can be targeted by innovative programs and interventions to address gender disparities in academic advancement. Disclosures All Authors: No reported disclosures

scholarly journals Implicit Bias Reflects the Personal and the Social

2018 ◽  
Author(s):  
Andrew M Rivers ◽  
Heather Rees ◽  
Jimmy Calanchini ◽  
Jeff Sherman
Keyword(s):  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Theoretical Models ◽  
Implicit Measures ◽  
Situational Influences ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
Target Article ◽  
The Social ◽  
Intergroup Biases ◽  
And Storage

This issue’s target article by Payne, Vuletich, and Lundberg (PV&L) does exactly what one should, presenting an argument that is thought-provoking and that challenges current orthodoxy. It also addresses an issue that has increasingly confounded attitudes researchers in recent years. The construct of “implicit bias” was initially conceptualized as a latent construct that exists within persons, relatively resistant to situational influences. A plethora of theoretical models converge on the notion that implicit biases, including intergroup biases, are representations that are stored in memory (e.g., Devine,1989; Fazio, Jackson, Dunton, & Williams, 1995; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, 2006; Greenwald et al., 2002; Wilson, Lindsay, & Schooler, 2000). Although some perspectives emphasize the role of culture in contributing to implicit measures of bias, even these perspectives rely on the learning and storage of mental representations (Olson & Fazio, 2004).

scholarly journals Blind Spots in International Law

2018 ◽  
Vol 31 (2) ◽  
pp. 209-218
Author(s):  
MACHIKO KANETAKE
Keyword(s):  
Social Psychology ◽  
International Law ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Decision Makers ◽  
Large Set ◽  
Legal Scholarship ◽  
Good People ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
Hidden Biases ◽  
Blind Spots

AbstractThis editorial aims to foster debate on the possible roles of implicit social cognition in international law. The editorial is in part inspired by a book entitled Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People, written by Banaji and Greenwald, researchers of social psychology. According to them, a large set of implicit biases reside in our minds, which may influence our behaviour towards ourselves and others. It is safe to argue that international judges, arbitrators, diplomats, domestic officials who apply international law, and international legal scholars are not immune from implicit bias. Within international legal scholarship, some relevant experiments have already been conducted in unveiling decision makers’ intuitive and automatic thinking. While implicit bias is hard to identify and remedy, this editorial encourages international legal practitioners and scholars to diversify their own experiences and engage in the imagination of counter-stereotypes.

Implicit Bias and Multilingual Assessment in School-Based Speech-Language Pathologists

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-15
Author(s):  
Marisa Nelson ◽  
Laura Wilson
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Practice ◽  
Best Practices ◽  
Implicit Association Test ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Demographic Factors ◽  
Speech Language Pathologists ◽  
Attitudes Toward Immigrants ◽  
School Based ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
The Impact

Purpose: The purpose of this research was (a) to examine school-based speech-language pathologists' (SLPs') implicit attitudes toward immigrants and how these relate to prioritization and use of best practices when assessing multilingual children and (b) to determine if key demographic factors relate to the use and prioritization of these best practices. Method: Eighty-six certified SLPs ranked how they prioritize and use best practices in multilingual assessments and completed an online immigrant Implicit Association Test. Results: The majority of participants exhibited a strong implicit bias against immigrants (median D-score of 0.84, interquartile range: 0.49), but no significant relationship was found between increasing bias and lower prioritization or use of best practices. Increased years working as an SLP and increasingly distant personal relationships to immigration were related to lower prioritization and use of some best practices. An unexpected association included increased reported use of interpreters with increasing implicit bias against immigrants. Conclusions: This research found a strong implicit bias against immigrants among participating school-based SLPs, consistent with previous work detailing health professionals' preferences for ingroups over outgroups. It adds to the call for further research into the impact of implicit biases on clinical practice, and the methods and merits of addressing implicit biases in targeted populations such as SLPs. This study also identified demographic factors associated with decreased prioritization and use of certain best practices when assessing multilingual children. More work is needed to learn how to mitigate these factors to ensure culturally sensitive clinical practice. Supplemental Material https://doi.org/10.23641/asha.16799638

scholarly journals Stability and Change in Implicit Bias

2019 ◽  
Vol 30 (6) ◽  
pp. 854-862 ◽  
Author(s):  
Heidi A. Vuletich ◽  
B. Keith Payne
Keyword(s):  
Racial Bias ◽  
Implicit Bias ◽  
Social Environments ◽  
Structural Inequality ◽  
Stability And Change ◽  
University Campuses ◽  
Implicit Biases ◽  
The Stability ◽  
Original Interpretation ◽  
Individual Scores

Can implicit bias be changed? In a recent longitudinal study, Lai and colleagues (2016, Study 2) compared nine interventions intended to reduce racial bias across 18 university campuses. Although all interventions changed participants’ bias on an immediate test, none were effective after a delay. This study has been interpreted as strong evidence that implicit biases are difficult to change. We revisited Lai et al.’s study to test whether the stability observed reflected persistent individual attitudes or stable environments. Our reanalysis ( N = 4,842) indicates that individual biases did not return to preexisting levels. Instead, campus means returned to preexisting campus means, whereas individual scores fluctuated mostly randomly. Campus means were predicted by markers of structural inequality. Our results are consistent with the theory that implicit bias reflects biases in the environment rather than individual dispositions. This conclusion is nearly the opposite of the original interpretation: Although social environments are stable, individual implicit biases are ephemeral.

Descartes' Mistake: How Afterlife Beliefs Challenge the Assumption that Humans are Intuitive Cartesian Substance Dualists

2008 ◽  
Vol 8 (3-4) ◽  
pp. 387-415 ◽  
Author(s):  
K. Mitch Hodge
Keyword(s):  
Empirical Evidence ◽  
Explanatory Power ◽  
Sole Source ◽  
Cultural Representations ◽  
Substance Dualism ◽  
Parsimonious Explanation ◽  
Mind And Body ◽  
Funerary Rites ◽  
The Mind ◽  
Afterlife Beliefs

AbstractThis article presents arguments and evidence that run counter to the widespread assumption among scholars that humans are intuitive Cartesian substance dualists. With regard to afterlife beliefs, the hypothesis of Cartesian substance dualism as the intuitive folk position fails to have the explanatory power with which its proponents endow it. It is argued that the embedded corollary assumptions of the intuitive Cartesian substance dualist position (that the mind and body are different substances, that the mind and soul are intensionally identical, and that the mind is the sole source of identity) are not compatible with cultural representations such as mythologies, funerary rites, iconography and doctrine as well as empirical evidence concerning intuitive folk reasoning about the mind and body concerning the afterlife. Finally, the article suggests an alternative and more parsimonious explanation for understanding intuitive folk representations of the afterlife.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document