Implicit-Bias Remedies: Treating Discriminatory Bias as a Public-Health Problem

IF 18.2 1区 心理学 Q1 PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY Psychological Science in the Public Interest Pub Date : 2022-05-01 DOI:10.1177/15291006211070781
A. Greenwald, N. Dasgupta, J. Dovidio, Jerry Kang, C. Moss‐Racusin, B. Teachman
{"title":"Implicit-Bias Remedies: Treating Discriminatory Bias as a Public-Health Problem","authors":"A. Greenwald, N. Dasgupta, J. Dovidio, Jerry Kang, C. Moss‐Racusin, B. Teachman","doi":"10.1177/15291006211070781","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"Accumulated findings from studies in which implicit-bias measures correlate with discriminatory judgment and behavior have led many social scientists to conclude that implicit biases play a causal role in racial and other discrimination. In turn, that belief has promoted and sustained two lines of work to develop remedies: (a) individual treatment interventions expected to weaken or eradicate implicit biases and (b) group-administered training programs to overcome biases generally, including implicit biases. Our review of research on these two types of sought remedies finds that they lack established methods that durably diminish implicit biases and have not reproducibly reduced discriminatory consequences of implicit (or other) biases. That disappointing conclusion prompted our turn to strategies based on methods that have been successful in the domain of public health. Preventive measures are designed to disable the path from implicit biases to discriminatory outcomes. Disparity-finding methods aim to discover disparities that sometimes have obvious fixes, or that at least suggest where responsibility should reside for developing a fix. Disparity-finding methods have the advantage of being useful in remediation not only for implicit biases but also systemic biases. For both of these categories of bias, causes of discriminatory outcomes are understood as residing in large part outside the conscious awareness of individual actors. We conclude with recommendations to guide organizations that wish to deal with biases for which they have not yet found solutions.","PeriodicalId":20879,"journal":{"name":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","volume":null,"pages":null},"PeriodicalIF":18.2000,"publicationDate":"2022-05-01","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"","citationCount":"23","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Psychological Science in the Public Interest","FirstCategoryId":"102","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1177/15291006211070781","RegionNum":1,"RegionCategory":"心理学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 23

Abstract

Accumulated findings from studies in which implicit-bias measures correlate with discriminatory judgment and behavior have led many social scientists to conclude that implicit biases play a causal role in racial and other discrimination. In turn, that belief has promoted and sustained two lines of work to develop remedies: (a) individual treatment interventions expected to weaken or eradicate implicit biases and (b) group-administered training programs to overcome biases generally, including implicit biases. Our review of research on these two types of sought remedies finds that they lack established methods that durably diminish implicit biases and have not reproducibly reduced discriminatory consequences of implicit (or other) biases. That disappointing conclusion prompted our turn to strategies based on methods that have been successful in the domain of public health. Preventive measures are designed to disable the path from implicit biases to discriminatory outcomes. Disparity-finding methods aim to discover disparities that sometimes have obvious fixes, or that at least suggest where responsibility should reside for developing a fix. Disparity-finding methods have the advantage of being useful in remediation not only for implicit biases but also systemic biases. For both of these categories of bias, causes of discriminatory outcomes are understood as residing in large part outside the conscious awareness of individual actors. We conclude with recommendations to guide organizations that wish to deal with biases for which they have not yet found solutions.
查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
隐性偏见治疗:将歧视性偏见视为一个公共卫生问题
隐性偏见测量与歧视性判断和行为相关的研究积累的结果使许多社会科学家得出结论,隐性偏见在种族和其他歧视中起着因果作用。反过来,这种信念促进并维持了两条开发补救措施的工作路线:(a)旨在削弱或消除隐性偏见的个人治疗干预措施;(b)旨在普遍克服偏见(包括隐性偏见)的集体管理培训计划。我们对这两种寻求补救措施的研究综述发现,它们缺乏持久减少隐性偏见的既定方法,也没有可复制地减少隐性(或其他)偏见的歧视性后果。这一令人失望的结论促使我们转向基于在公共卫生领域取得成功的方法的战略。预防措施旨在阻断从隐性偏见到歧视性结果的途径。差异发现方法旨在发现差异,这些差异有时有明显的修复方法,或者至少表明了开发修复方法的责任所在。差异发现方法的优点是不仅对隐性偏见有用,而且对系统性偏见也有用。对于这两类偏见,歧视性结果的原因被理解为在很大程度上存在于个人行为者的意识之外。最后,我们提出了一些建议,以指导那些希望处理尚未找到解决方案的偏见的组织。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Psychological Science in the Public Interest
Psychological Science in the Public Interest PSYCHOLOGY, MULTIDISCIPLINARY-
CiteScore
44.80
自引率
0.40%
发文量
7
期刊介绍: Psychological Science in the Public Interest (PSPI) is a distinctive journal that provides in-depth and compelling reviews on issues directly relevant to the general public. Authored by expert teams with diverse perspectives, these reviews aim to evaluate the current state-of-the-science on various topics. PSPI reports have addressed issues such as questioning the validity of the Rorschach and other projective tests, examining strategies to maintain cognitive sharpness in aging brains, and highlighting concerns within the field of clinical psychology. Notably, PSPI reports are frequently featured in Scientific American Mind and covered by various major media outlets.
期刊最新文献
About the Authors Implicit-Bias Remedies: Treating Discriminatory Bias as a Public-Health Problem Implicit Bias Is a Public-Health Problem, and Hearts and Minds Are Part of the Solution Corrigendum: The Science of Visual Data Communication: What Works About the Authors
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1