FAQs: What is Implicit Bias and Why Do I Need to Know About It?

Introduction

The concept of implicit bias, which in current public discussion means white bias, is at the heart of almost all anti-racist initiatives that institutions including the British Museum, businesses, universities and schools, as well as some trade unions. The concept shifts the burden of proof of the existence of racism from social systems of standards and procedures to individual psychology. And this is one reason why people might find it hard to question: deep down we all know we have our own biases even if we don’t always admit it.

But: having a bias does not mean we act on that bias.

If you watched the (in)famous Channel 4 Documentary, The School that Tried to End Racism, you will have seen that there is a supposedly scientific test called the Harvard Implicit Bias Test that is supposed to prove the link between unconscious biases against black people and real-life racism, even if people are consciously anti-racist or believe in equality among different ethnicities.

But: if a racist society exists before any individual is born, how can individual biases be responsible for something that was there before birth? If bias is something mysteriously inherited across generations, then how is it that Britain no longer takes part in chattel slavery? And how come, today unlike the past, Britain’s citizens, across the classes, now includes black people? The premise is illogical.

The Harvard Implicit Bias test sounds like it must be truthful – after all, Harvard is one of the top universities in the world. But it is seriously flawed.

FAQ 1. What is the implicit bias test?

The race implicit bias test is part of the Implicit Association Test (IAT), first introduced by psychologists Anthony Greenwald, Mahzarin Banaji, and Brian Nosek in 1998, and gave rise to the implicit bias model. Unconscious Bias Training (UBT), Implicit Bias Training, Anti-Bias Training and Anti-Racism Training are all built on the implicit bias model. ⁱ

The model argues that high levels of implicit bias, as apparently measured by the IAT, explain the persistence of racial disparities in a society where explicitly racist attitudes and behaviors have declined.ⁱⁱ

This is how it works:

The IAT takes place on a computer across the following four rounds:

1. To begin with, participants are asked to hit ‘I’ on the keyboard when a positive word shows on screen and ‘E’ when a negative word shows.

2. Next, participants are prompted to hit ‘I’ when they see a black African face and ‘E’ when they see a white European face.

3. In the third-round participants must press ‘I’ for a good word or a black face and ‘E’ for a bad word or a white face.

4. In the last round, this is reversed so that participants press ‘I’ for a bad word or a black face and ‘E’ for a good word or a white face.ⁱⁱⁱ

. The IAT calculates your reaction speed when associating concepts (positive or negative words) and attributes (black or white faces).^iv In other words, the race IAT is measuring how fast or slow you are to associate positive or negative words with different racial groups.

. The IAT feeds reaction times into an algorithm that categorises participant’s as having either a ‘slight,’ ‘moderate’ or ‘strong’ preference for white faces over black or vice versa. So, a ‘strong preference’ for white faces would be regarded as evidence of high levels of implicit anti-black bias. The test can also show no preference.^v

FAQ 2. What’s wrong with the IAT?

The table below shows that the later work on IATs showed important weaknesses

First Generation IAT Claim	Second Generation IAT Research Finding
. The IAT is a valid, reliable, objective psychological test measuring unconscious, implicit beliefs.	. The IAT It falls below the common standards expected of a psychological test because it measures the speed of reaction which is not the same as measuring a social concept like racism vi . There is no consensus on whether the IAT measures something that can accurately be defined as unconscious.vii Also the speed of some people’s reactions may be because they are aware of negative stereotypes (the test does not measure attitudes to stereotypes). It could also measure implicit prejudice, but this is only one of several other plausible interpretations.
. The IAT can predict an individual’s likelihood to be explicitly racially prejudiced.	. The IAT cannot be used to predict individual behaviour and IAT scores do not correlate with likelihood to engage in explicit racial discrimination.viii
. Reducing implicit bias as measured by the IAT reduces instances of explicit racial discrimination.	. Reducing implicit bias has no impact on explicit behaviour.ix

So: the test is not scientifically reliable and is not a good reason for implementing unconscious bias training.

FAQ 3. What is Unconscious Bias (UBT) Training?

UBT relying on the implicit bias model has become common place in many organisations and spawned a profitable industry claiming to be able to reduce levels of implicit bias and improve workplace diversity. However, this claim, like the implicit bias model itself, is deeply questionable. It is therefore unlikely that UBT has much impact on the issues of workplace diversity or discrimination. A 2018 study concludes:

‘[a]n individual who supposedly shows high implicit bias…is no more likely to discriminate in any given situation than an individual who supposedly shows low implicit bias.’^x

Rates of implicit bias, as measured by the IAT, are no more accurate in determining someone’s views on race than explicit self-report measures, where people are asked to rank their agreement with statements like ‘Blacks are getting too demanding in their push for equal rights.’^xi In line with this finding, people who sit the race IAT are often able to predict their score in advance, meaning they show conscious awareness of a bias the test claims to be unconscious.^xii

So: UBT is a waste of employers’ money and employees time and effort.

FAQ 4. But isn’t it better than doing nothing?

Focusing on implicit bias as UBT advocates may distract from practical steps employers can take to combat prejudice, such as enabling anonymous application and promotion procedures^xiii. Studies have shown that implicit bias can be marginally reduced over the short term, but this does not result in reductions in real world discriminatory behaviour and may simply reflect the fact that people can manipulate their IAT score with practice.^xiv This undermines the core claim of UBT, that targeting implicit bias is an effective way to reduce racial discrimination.

Moreover, there is reason to believe that UBT may prime participants to see themselves in divisive racialized terms, have counterproductive impacts on teamwork and communication and increase the likelihood that participants will assign blame to colleagues on the basis of race. In studies, minority participants who complete a race IAT prior to performing a team task with white colleague’s report feeling less valued than minority participants who have not taken an IAT^xv. Researchers have observed that mandatory anti-prejudice training like UBT can actually increase endorsement of racial stereotypes and generate resentment in the workplace^xvi. This correlates with the finding that Anti-Racism Training results in participants making negative assessments of their white colleagues on the basis that they ‘have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege,’ and makes them more likely to reject external factors, like poverty, as legitimate explanations of a lack of attainment by white individuals^xvii. It is possible that the artificial awareness of implicit prejudice cultivated by UBT in some sense creates and entrenches the racial bias it claims to combat.

For example, a public narrative that promotes the idea of black people as victims of police brutality solely because of their skin colour, is likely to provoke a counter narrative of black people being perpetrators of crime for the same reason. Both are stereotypes – which ignore the fact that in Britain, most black people are neither – just like most white people.

We have more in common in social life, despite differentials that show structural inequalities!

FAQ 5. Can my employer force me to do Unconscious Bias Training?

The answer to this question will vary according to the sector you work in and the attitudes of your employer.

Here are some points to consider.

. Check your contract: UBT is sometimes voluntary, in which case you are not contractually obliged to participate and should not be penalised for choosing not to do so. If you are concerned about being labelled racist for failing to participate in voluntary UBT there are sources of support available (see endnote 18)

Most employment contracts list the mandatory training that your employer expects you to do. Sometimes, this is essential to the nature of your job. For example, if you are a health and safety inspector your contract is likely to specify that you must undergo training in any new health and safety procedures. If you refused to participate in this training you would not be able to do your job safely and your employer would have legitimate grounds to dismiss you.

Some employers now include UBT in employees’ contractual commitments. While providers of UBT naturally argue that it is essential in all workplaces, UBT is more likely to be contractually mandated if you are employed in a sector like social work or healthcare. Clients in disciplines like these are seen as particularly vulnerable to the effects of social discrimination. As we have seen, it is not straightforwardly true that implicit bias operates in the way that UBT implies. Nonetheless, employers often embrace the common misconceptions around IAT and UBT. If UBT is mandated in your contract and you have a principled objection to its imposition, here are some things you can do.

. Assess Your Workplace culture: How strictly enforced mandatory UBT is in your workplace depends very much on your employer. In some organisations there may be little serious monitoring of who does and does not attend training. You will be best placed to assess this in the context of your own workplace, so you can decide whether it is possible for you to quietly absent yourself from UBT without publicly questioning its imposition in your organisation.

However, where possible, we encourage you to take an open and proactive approach to objecting to UBT. Stating your case in a principled and comprehensive way will help to correct common misconceptions about UBT and may encourage employers to invest in more effective approaches to the important issues of racial inequality and discrimination.

. Check if the proposed UBT is compatible with the Equality Act 2010: Under the Equality Act it is illegal to discriminate against someone at work on the basis of a protected characteristic. You can read more about the Equality Act here. Official guidance advises employers to provide ‘equality training’ to ensure that employees understand the law regarding discrimination. UBT is frequently marketed to employers as a way to meet their duties under the Equality Act. However, UBT rarely meets the official criteria for equality training.

Equality training should explain the law under the Equality Act, including the twelve protected characteristics, specify what constitutes discriminatory behaviour and outline why it is detrimental to the workplace. In other words, equality training should focus on explicit discrimination and why it is unacceptable under the law.

UBT rarely outlines the law contained in the Equality Act and as explained in this document, focuses almost entirely on discrimination described as implicit or unconscious. Official guidance on equality training does not specify that employees must accept the implicit bias paradigm or affirm the belief that racial discrimination is caused principally by unconscious prejudice perpetuated regardless of personal intent. As stated earlier, these are ideological beliefs that people are entitled to subscribe to but they are not mandated in law.

Cultivating adherence to ideologically contested and methodologically suspect beliefs about the causes of racial inequality is not a responsibility of employers under the Equality Act. In fact, as outlined earlier, UBT may actually detract from practical measures that have proven effective in addressing the kind of discrimination the Equality Act aims to prevent.

FAQ 6. How do I approach my employer if I have a principled objection to IAT or UBT at my job?

There is presently a lot of pressure to subscribe to the ideological world view presented by IAT and UBT. This is at least in part due to the influence of critical social justice (CSJ) activism, which heavily advocates for the position that implicit bias and unconscious prejudice are major drivers of modern inequality. Its proponents condemn as bigoted any approaches that don’t align with their own, creating a culture where people are fearful of voicing dissent. Poorly evidenced approaches like UBT thrive under these circumstances, not because they are accurate or effective, but because they demonstrate ideological conformity to the CSJ worldview.

It is not bigoted to have a principled disagreement with the ideas of CSJ. Nonetheless, standing up for your beliefs can be worrying in this climate. This section will outline a process you can follow to address these issues with your employer as safely and effectively as possible.

Step One: Join the Free Speech Union

Hopefully, your employer will be open to hearing alternative views about the IAT and UBT. However, it is always best to insure against negative outcomes by taking precautions.

We highly recommend that you join the Free Speech Union (FSU) before raising these issues with your employer. The FSU supports people in their right to freedom of expression and belief. They offer advice and advocacy for people who are taking a stand and may take up your case if you face penalties for speaking out. Sign up before you do anything else!

Step Two: Equality Training, Unconscious Bias Training or Anti-racism Training? Doing your homework

As there is considerable variation in the ideological emphasis of different UBT providers, it’s important to determine precisely what kind of training your organisation is planning before raising it with your employer.

You may be pleasantly surprised. Perhaps your employer is providing non-ideological equality training to explain the legal terms of the Equality Act. The UBT program that your company has selected may avoid the worst assumptions of the implicit bias paradigm and simply encourage employees to communicate respectfully across difference. In the best-case scenario, a training might even emphasise viewpoint diversity, advising participants to transcend narrow identity categories based on immutable characteristics by working to achieve common goals. You might not feel the need to object to this kind of training.

On the other hand, if you find that your employer is introducing politicised Anti-Racism Training or a version of UBT based on questionable science, then taking a well-informed stance will demonstrate to your employer that you come from a place of knowledge and empower you to speak confidently. This FAQ and the readings are a good starting point.

Step Three: Be confident in your principled disagreement

People have different reasons for objecting to ideologically motivated UBT at work and many of them write to us about their experiences. These people are united in their opposition to bigotry of all kinds. They simply disagree with the way the implicit bias framework understands and addresses the problem of discrimination. Some of them believe UBT is actively harmful to the goal of racial equality and feel a strong moral responsibility to speak out against it on that basis.

Whatever your reason for speaking up, take the time to be confident in your beliefs and motivations before proceeding. Write out a statement of your principles. Discuss your values with friends and family. Build confidence in expressing your beliefs and develop a calm, clear, diplomatic approach. You can find an article here that might help you get your thoughts together.

Step Four: Assessing institutional support

The culture of ideological conformity and stifling of dissent already described leave many employees with a principled objection to UBT feeling isolated and disempowered. They fear being labelled racist and the damage this could cause to their professional reputation. Many describe their personal anxiety about the prospect of being condemned by colleagues they regard as friends.

However, people who speak out are sometimes pleasantly surprised. Despite the impression cultivated by CSJ activists, the beliefs embodied in the implicit bias model and UBT influenced by CRT are not commonly accepted. Most people favour an approach to racial discrimination that holds people accountable for their actions and doesn’t make excuses for racist behaviour on the basis of unconscious prejudices beyond the realm of the individual’s control. Many employees treat UBT as a tick box exercise, something they do to keep management happy without necessarily endorsing the ideology it is built on. Employees like this may be grateful if someone is brave enough to make a principled objection to UBT. One employee likened the experience to nervously ‘coming out’ as a Brexit supporter at a work lunch, only to find that several colleagues shared her views.

Before raising your concerns with your employer, assess the institutional support for your position. You could begin very informally by considering which of your colleagues might be sympathetic to your views and arranging to catch up with them over coffee. If they agree with your stance and are prepared to back your objection it will add weight to your case.

If this is not an option, you might try soliciting anonymous feedback. In a number of workplaces where employees have been anonymously asked for their views on the introduction of ideological measures like UBT, people have been much more willing to criticise the approach. Before approaching your employer, you could create a new email address and send an anonymous message to your colleagues canvassing their views. In this way you might identify supporters who would have been reluctant to come forward openly.

Step Five: Putting your concerns in writing

When you are ready to raise your principled objection to UBT with your employer, put your concerns in writing. The template letters on the DDU website might be helpful as a starting point.

Based on the experiences of people who have successfully pushed back against CSJ issues at work, Helen Pluckrose and James Lyndsay have written this guide. It is a gold standard for communicating about contentious issues like the IAT and UBT. While we highly recommend reading the guide in depth, some of the points are summarised here.

. Start with the principle of charity: The principle of charity suggests that, in the absence of evidence of deliberate wrongdoing, we interpret the actions of others in the most charitable way possible. Unless you know otherwise, approach your employer on the basis that they are not aware of the controversial ideological and dubious scientific roots of IAT and UBT. If you know that your employer endorses the belief system around UBT, then it will be even more important to demonstrate your knowledge of the ideology and concepts it is founded on.

. Affirm a shared commitment to equality: Open your letter by affirming your commitment to equality and acknowledging the importance of addressing racial discrimination in the context of your company. Emphasise that important issues like discrimination should be addressed in serious and respectful ways, employing the most rigorous tools at our disposal. Caution against introducing hasty, fashionable policies in reaction to current events and highlight that truly meaningful interventions are made on the basis of careful consideration.

You might use statements like this, which encourage your employer to think more deeply about whether UBT is the most effective way to foster diversity and equality:

‘How will [company name] measure the existing level of unconscious bias in the workforce so that the efficacy of the training can be established? I am confident we share the goal of addressing issues as serious as racial discrimination in the most rigorous ways possible. Employing rigorous measures demonstrates our intention to take these matters seriously and signifies to the workforce that [company name] is not taking purely symbolic action.’

. Demonstrate knowledge: Be clear about what action you want your employer to take, for example making UBT voluntary rather than mandatory. While your letter cannot include all the information referenced here, choose three key points to make about IAT and UBT and evidence them thoroughly.

Wherever possible, phrase your objections to UBT as questions that prompt your employer to look more deeply at the proposed training. For example:

. ‘The first wave of research on implicit bias suggested it was possible to measure and reduce an individual’s level of unconscious prejudice. Naturally, UBT was enthusiastically embraced as a means of achieving the worthy goal of racial equality. Is [company name] aware that subsequent research has largely disproved this central claim of the implicit bias paradigm? Even the creators of the implicit bias model now recognise that it cannot be used to assess individual levels of racial prejudice and have publicly disowned the utility of UBT.’

. Suggest alternatives: Remember, your employer may mistakenly think they are meeting their legal duties under the Equality Act by providing UBT. It will be useful to offer alternative approaches (see endnote 18).

. Commit to engaging in a process: Conclude your letter by reaffirming your commitment to addressing discrimination in the workplace and make an open invitation to further dialogue. If you are able to, you could volunteer to play a role in addressing equality issues in your company in future.

Step Six: Next Steps

. Worst case scenario: If your employer disciplines or fires you for raising a principled objection to UBT you should contact the FSU immediately, as described here. You may wish to speak to your union representative and seek legal advice. You can contact us with details of your experience and find information on other groups who may be able to provide advice and support. If you experience financial difficulties due to problems with your employment you can read more about benefits you may be entitled to here.

. Best case scenario: If your employer accepts your critiques of UBT and decides against it, then congratulations! We would be grateful to hear about your experience so that we can develop more effective tools of support.

. Being part of the ongoing process: It’s possible that your employer will want to engage in further dialogue about UBT and explore the evidence more thoroughly. If they decide they are committed to the proposed UBT then you will need to think carefully about how you wish to proceed.

You might consider asking your employer to solicit anonymous feedback from the workforce before implementing a controversial training. This sometimes demonstrates that a surprising number of employees are not in agreement with ideologically based UBT. Employers can solicit employee feedback simply by installing a suggestions box and asking people to anonymously comment on a proposed training. But there are also sophisticated digital feedback mechanisms marketed by companies who emphasise the potential profitability of running a business informed by the diverse views of employees. Suggesting a company such as this may highlight to your employer that enabling free speech in the workplace is a sound investment, in addition to being an ethical good.

Carrie Clark and Alka Sehgal-Cuthbert

Endnotes