{"id":438,"date":"2018-05-07T10:00:47","date_gmt":"2018-05-07T09:00:47","guid":{"rendered":"http:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/?p=438"},"modified":"2018-05-04T13:06:43","modified_gmt":"2018-05-04T12:06:43","slug":"implicit-bias-in-public-discourse","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/implicit-bias-in-public-discourse\/","title":{"rendered":"\u2018Implicit Bias\u2019 in public discourse"},"content":{"rendered":"

The news has been awash with discussion of implicit bias, and the role it seems to have played in the discriminatory treatment of two black men in a Philadelphia branch of Starbucks in the US. Donte Robinson and Rashon Nelson were waiting to meet a friend when they were asked to leave; when they declined to do so, the manager called the police. The incident is one of a pattern whereby black people are denied the right to enjoy spaces the way white people are, namely, safely and without harassment or undue suspicion or threat of (potentially grave) violence (another recent incident that received less coverage than the Starbucks case is the police violence against Chikesia Clemons<\/a>).<\/p>\n

<\/p>\n

Whilst the case has generated much discussion about implicit racial bias \u2013 not least because of the Starbucks CEO\u2019s hasty announcement that all of its employees would undergo bias training in an attempt to mitigate the risks of such wrongs being perpetrated in future \u2013 various questions have also been raised.<\/p>\n

Was this really a case of implicit bias, rather than explicit prejudice<\/a>? Doesn\u2019t calling it implicit bias let those involved (the manager, the police) off the hook? And isn\u2019t the move to engage in bias training just a PR move to repair Starbucks\u2019 public image, rather than to seriously address racial bias and prejudice?<\/p>\n

There is something to be said regarding each of these concerns. First, why think this was a case of implicit bias, rather than explicit anti-black prejudice? In my view, we don\u2019t have to choose \u2013 it can be both. I\u2019ve argued [here<\/a> (with Dr Joseph Sweetman), here<\/a>,and here]<\/a>\u00a0that implicit biases include a jumble of cognitive processes, characterised by their automatic and fast operation which makes them difficult (but not impossible!) to control or detect. These automatic processes can be present in many of our actions. For example, that the manager undertook a deliberate act (e.g. calling the police) doesn\u2019t mean that implicit bias wasn\u2019t involved \u2013 automatic stereotypes could have been active upstream, informing the misperception of the men as suspicious or threatening or unruly. Moreover, even if explicitly prejudicial beliefs were held by the manager \u2013 suppose that she explicitly endorsed racist beliefs such as that those men were more likely to be troublemakers due to their race \u2013 implicit biases may still have had a role alongside explicit prejudice. For example, automatic fear responses triggered by racist beliefs may have caused her to act rashly, rather than engage in calm conversation with the two customers of her establishment. So in short, we don\u2019t have to choose whether to explain the action in terms of implicit or explicit biases \u2013 sometimes (often?) both will be at work.<\/p>\n

But doesn\u2019t giving implicit bias a role in explaining discriminatory action have problematic consequences in letting people off the hook? If implicit bias is at work, do we have to say the manager isn\u2019t responsible? In my view, this is also a mistaken inference. People may tend to think that if biases are implicit, or unconscious, then we cannot be held responsible for them. I\u2019ve argued that this is wrong<\/a>. We can be held responsible for actions based on mental states that we are unaware of. To use a flippant but familiar example – when I forget a dear friend\u2019s birthday, I am unaware of certain beliefs (about it being their birthday) \u2013 but this lack of awareness doesn\u2019t make me less blameworthy for forgetting, unless there are mitigating circumstances (extreme stress, distraction by a serious and unexpected event). Mere lack of awareness does not excuse.<\/p>\n

But moreover, not being aware of mental states that may lead us to act in discriminatory ways doesn\u2019t mean we\u2019re not responsible. If we should<\/strong> be aware of this possibility, then lacking awareness of it itself can be blameworthy as well. <\/a><\/p>\n

Why think that we should<\/strong> be aware of such biases and the attendant possibility of being implicated in discrimination? Whilst the notion of implicit bias is gaining traction, not least due its presence in media discussions of such cases, the terminology emerged from the field of empirical psychology, and perhaps many people can\u2019t be expected to be aware of this field of research?<\/p>\n

This may be a legitimate concern if the empirical research were the only source of evidence we may have regarding the likelihood of forming discriminatory perceptions and beliefs, or perpetrating discriminatory actions unintentionally or without realising it. But it isn\u2019t the only source of evidence we have. The idea that people can be racist unintentionally, or without realising it is nothing new, and has been pointed out by many writers and scholars \u2013 James Baldwin, Gloria Yamato, Patricia Hill Collins, Charles Mills, Claudia Rankine, Chimamanda Ngozi Adichie, to name just a few. Whilst the findings from empirical psychology provide us with a useful notion to coin the mechanisms that might be at work here \u2013 implicit biases \u2013 such evidence from empirical psychology isn\u2019t needed to make the inference that people can be perpetrators of discrimination, unintentionally and without realising it. (How we might integrate these different sources of evidence is something that I\u2019m currently thinking about with Kathy Puddifoot<\/a>)<\/p>\n

Finally, what about the move, on the part of the Starbucks CEO to introduce a day of bias training for all employees? Recently, this intention has been revised to include a more long-term series of training. That revision is salutary \u2013 the worry that one-off bias training is a \u2018tick box\u2019 exercise is a legitimate one. Recent studies<\/a> about the effects of such bias training in the UK show that such sessions have almost no impact on stereotypes or prejudices that participants may hold \u2013 and this is not surprising, since no research shows that merely learning about bias for an hour or even a day suffices to reduce or eliminate biases. Moreover, a recent meta-analysis of attempts to change biases and behaviour suggested that changing biases doesn\u2019t correlate with changing behaviour. This casts doubt on whether bias reduction is where the primary focus should be. Rather, more imaginative changes to institutional practice, and policy, and social context look like better bets for moving towards goals of inclusion and equality than simply focusing on bias reduction. For example<\/a>, \u2018Nelson and Robinson said they\u2019re looking for more lasting results and are in mediation proceedings with Starbucks to implement changes, including the posting in stores of a customer bill of rights; the adoption of new policies regarding customer ejections, racial profiling and racial discrimination; and independent investigations of complaints of profiling or discrimination from customers and employees.\u2019<\/p>\n

If bias training is to be effective, a focus on motivating institutional changes, such as those described above, rather than mere bias reduction, should be the focus.<\/p>\n

 <\/p>\n

Featured Image: Civil Rights protesters and Woolworth’s Sit-In, Durham, NC, 10 February 1960. From the N&O Negative Collection, State Archives of North Carolina, Raleigh, NC. License Confirmed using Flickr API. https:\/\/www.flickr.com\/photos\/north-carolina-state-archives\/24495308926\/<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"The news has been awash with discussion of implicit bias, and the role it seems to have played in the discriminatory treatment of two black men in a Philadelphia branch […]","protected":false},"author":1319,"featured_media":439,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_jetpack_newsletter_access":"","_jetpack_dont_email_post_to_subs":false,"_jetpack_newsletter_tier_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paywalled_content":false,"_jetpack_feature_clip_id":0,"_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":"","jetpack_publicize_message":"","jetpack_publicize_feature_enabled":true,"jetpack_social_post_already_shared":true,"jetpack_social_options":{"image_generator_settings":{"template":"highway","default_image_id":0,"font":"","enabled":false},"version":2},"jetpack_post_was_ever_published":false},"categories":[19],"tags":[132,130,131],"custom_author":[129],"class_list":["post-438","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-open-for-debate","tag-american-politics","tag-implicit-bias","tag-racism","custom_author-holroyd-jules"],"jetpack_publicize_connections":[],"jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_shortlink":"https:\/\/wp.me\/p8KPlM-74","jetpack-related-posts":[{"id":1469,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/extended-confirmation-bias-when-the-mind-leaks-into-algorithms\/","url_meta":{"origin":438,"position":0},"title":"Extended confirmation bias: When the mind leaks into algorithms","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"June 27, 2022","format":false,"excerpt":"\u00a0It\u2019s no secret that when we are online, websites (Google, Facebook, YouTube etc.) often use algorithms to infer our preferences, interests, or attitudes from our digital footprints (our browsing, clicks, \u2018likes\u2019) to personalize content to us (about 12 to 47% search results are personalized). Consequently, information we encounter online often\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":284,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/what-is-closed-mindedness\/","url_meta":{"origin":438,"position":1},"title":"What is Closed-Mindedness?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 20, 2017","format":false,"excerpt":"On March 7 2017, Jason Chaffetz who was then a member of the US House of Representatives (R-Utah) told a CNN anchor: \u201cAmericans have choices\u2026.rather than\u00a0getting that new iPhone\u2026they should invest\u2026in their own health care. They've got to make those decisions for themselves.\u201d[1] Later the same day, in a discussion\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "In the News"","block_context":{"text":"In the News","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/in-the-news\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2017\/11\/padlock-1815590_1280.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":542,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/the-empathy-defense-emmett-till-open-casket-and-white-empathy\/","url_meta":{"origin":438,"position":2},"title":"The Empathy Defense: Emmett Till, “Open Casket,” and ‘White Empathy’","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"November 19, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"\u201cA painting of a dead black boy by a white artist.\u201d This is British artist Hannah Black's description of Dana Schutz's Open Casket, a painting included in the 2017 Whitney Biennial and one that Black has urged be destroyed. The 'dead black boy' is Emmett Till, a fourteen-year-old who was\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/10\/SCH-16_012aL2-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]},{"id":575,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/academic-participation-in-social-movements-a-call-for-ethical-review\/","url_meta":{"origin":438,"position":3},"title":"Academic participation in social movements: A call for ethical review","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"December 31, 2018","format":false,"excerpt":"I\u2019ve been an academic for some 35 years. Since 1991, I have been a (first assistant, then associate, then full) professor at Georgetown University in the philosophy department and since 1996 the program on justice and peace. For roughly the same number of years, I have been actively involved in\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"","width":0,"height":0},"classes":[]},{"id":2119,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/how-should-we-live-our-intellectual-lives\/","url_meta":{"origin":438,"position":4},"title":"How should we lead our intellectual lives?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"October 14, 2024","format":false,"excerpt":"This question has long preoccupied philosophers, but has recently taken on greater public urgency in response to fears about misinformation, disinformation, bullshit, tribalism, and other perceived epistemic threats. One answer to this question is that we should live our intellectual lives the same way we should live our ethical lives:\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2024\/10\/Open-for-Debate-image_beehive_Bland.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x"},"classes":[]},{"id":663,"url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/epistemic-injustice-whose-job-is-it-to-end-it\/","url_meta":{"origin":438,"position":5},"title":"EPISTEMIC INJUSTICE: WHOSE JOB IS IT TO END IT?","author":"Alessandra Tanesini","date":"May 6, 2019","format":false,"excerpt":"Epistemic injustice refers to a category of harms that affect people specifically in their capacity as knowers, inquirers or communicators as opposed to fellow citizens, members of the moral community or rational agents more broadly. Examples include but are not limited to unwarranted distrust and denial of intelligibility with respect\u2026","rel":"","context":"In "Open for Debate"","block_context":{"text":"Open for Debate","link":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/category\/open-for-debate\/"},"img":{"alt_text":"","src":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Radoilska_Blog-image_-Feb19-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1","width":350,"height":200,"srcset":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Radoilska_Blog-image_-Feb19-scaled.jpg?resize=350%2C200&ssl=1 1x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Radoilska_Blog-image_-Feb19-scaled.jpg?resize=525%2C300&ssl=1 1.5x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Radoilska_Blog-image_-Feb19-scaled.jpg?resize=700%2C400&ssl=1 2x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Radoilska_Blog-image_-Feb19-scaled.jpg?resize=1050%2C600&ssl=1 3x, https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2019\/05\/Radoilska_Blog-image_-Feb19-scaled.jpg?resize=1400%2C800&ssl=1 4x"},"classes":[]}],"meta_box":[],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/533\/2018\/05\/Civil_Rights_protesters_and_Woolworths_Sit-In_Durham_NC_10_February_1960.jpg","_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1319"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=438"}],"version-history":[{"count":4,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions"}],"predecessor-version":[{"id":442,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/438\/revisions\/442"}],"wp:featuredmedia":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media\/439"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=438"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=438"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=438"},{"taxonomy":"custom_author","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/blogs.cardiff.ac.uk\/openfordebate\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/custom_author?post=438"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}