[1] Some researchers say implicit biases are learned stereotypes that are automatic, seemingly associative,[2] unintentional, deeply ingrained, universal, and can influence behavior.
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".
However, their study differed from previous research because two unique sounds were played after each successful pairing of either a gender or race counterstereotype.
[19] Kawakami, Dovido, Moll, Hermsen, and Russin (2000) conducted one of the first studies to test the effects of negation training on reducing implicit bias.
[23] 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.
Additionally, the researchers discovered that motivation plays a role in the effectiveness of implicit bias training programs.
They had participants watch a clip of a movie that showed an Asian American being discriminated against and were told to read a college admissions folder and decide if the student should be admitted.
[25] In 2013, they conducted an additional study in which they added a task where they flashed the pronouns "us" or "them" before showing an adjective with a good or bad connotation.
[28]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.
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.
Hutcherson, Seppala, and Gross (2008) showed that a few minutes of LMK could create a sense of empathy and compassion for a neutral target, which inspired the idea to use meditation as an implicit bias training technique.
[31] Stell and Farsides (2016) found that after only seven minutes of LMK, implicit racial bias for a targeted group was reduced.
[30] Kang, Gray, and Dovido (2014) found that participants who attended a seven-week meditation course showed a significant decrease in implicit bias towards African Americans and homeless people.
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.
[9] In 2016, Moss-Racusin and colleagues created a 120-minute workshop called "Scientific Diversity" that was aimed at reducing gender bias.
[33] During the workshop, instructors presented empirical evidence on implicit bias, encouraged active group discussion, and helped participants practice techniques for creating an accepting environment.
The posttest questionnaires revealed that participants experienced increased diversity awareness and decreased subtle gender bias.
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.
[10] Van Ryn and colleagues (2015) started a course for medical school students that studies disparities in minority health care.
During class, students read articles about implicit biases, hold group discussions, and gain experience with interacting with racial minorities.
[11] Stone, Moskowitz, and Zestcott (2015) conducted a workshop for medical students that used self-reflection techniques to motivate healthcare providers to address their implicit biases.
Two days later, participants discussed strategies for reducing bias, seeking common identities, and taking the perspective of patients in small groups.
It came as a major blow when four separate meta–analyses, undertaken between 2009 and 2015—each examining between 46 and 167 individual studies—all showed the IAT [implicit bias test] to be a weak predictor of behavior.
Proponents of the IAT tend to point to individual studies showing strong links between test scores and racist behavior.
[38]Goff’s work points to studies showing police officers with high anti-black IAT scores are quicker to shoot at African Americans.
[38]Interventions to reduce implicit bias did not result in actual changes in behavior: A 2017 meta-analysis that looked at 494 previous studies (currently under peer review and not yet published in a journal) from several researchers, including Nosek, found that reducing implicit bias did not affect behavior.