Contrary to popular belief, people are not as magnanimous as they believe they are. This position differs from what past research in social psychology suggests. For instance, Sigmund Freud believed in the existence of complete and conscious awareness. Contradicting Freud’s position, recent advances in experimental research suggest that not only do people don’t know themselves, but also if they did, they would find it hard to accept their real selves. This idea is postulated and proven by Banaji & Greenwald (2016) in their book titled, Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People . In pursuit of this endeavor, the authors employ the Implicit Association Test (IAT). The IAT is computer-based and assesses unconscious biases. The test is anchored in social psychology and is aimed at measuring an individual's automatic or subconscious association between specific ideas and concepts and types of people. In the book, the authors cite that for instance, using a version of IAT referred to as Race IAT; it was established that up to 75% of those that took the test had an implicit preference that favored white people over the blacks ( Banaji & Greenwald , 2016) . Interestingly, amongst the 75% were some African-Americans.
Banaji & Greenwald (2016) expound on prejudice as exhibited unknowingly by people as well as the workings of IAT. One profound indicator of the validity of the test is its success in predicting behavior. The authors argue that an automatic preference for whites was found to correlate with such incidences as the sub-optimal treatment of emergency room patients of African-American origin, the unfavorable judgment of job applicants of color as well as laughter at jokes that can be considered racist. The scores recorded on the Race IAT can be used in the prediction of such cases of discrimination more accurately than the overt statements made by individuals regarding their beliefs. Further, the authors reckon that the discrepancies that may be exhibited between the implicit tests and the individuals' explicit statements are occasioned, to some extent, by reputation management. However, to the greatest extent, the discrepancies may be as a result of dissonance reduction. Regarding reputation management, the authors reckon that most people are keen on not openly expressing their biases. Ultimately, individuals are less likely to admit to themselves that they have biases, and are protected by self-deception.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
According to the authors, all individuals have biases not only against others but also against themselves. In this context, even individuals that have the most egalitarian mind are bound to exhibit a bias for their respective group over the other groups. Banaji & Greenwald (2016) reckon that this prejudice is hard-wired and has evolved as a survival strategy. This book digs deeper into the area of unconscious bias, making use of experiments that people are capable of doing themselves in a bid to measure personal subconscious biases in such areas as gender and race. Thus, a notable issue highlighted in the book is the discovery by the authors that a split or discrepancy exists between an individual's beliefs and attitudes as he or she deliberately or consciously states them and the automatic beliefs and attitudes as revealed by the IAT. In this context, one important social perspective that the book highlights is the existence of racial bias even among individuals that believe they don't have it.
Racial bias is exhibited for instance by whites who claim that they are not prejudiced against the black populace while they attain high scores on taking the IAT test. This can be explained in various ways. For instance, when an individual helps someone within his or he group, they are indirectly discriminating against the other groups. This can be exemplified by an instance where a person writes a letter of recommendation for an individual in his or her circles or group. This is because this act is bound to hurt the chances of an individual from a different group from getting the spot. Also, there are some acts that individuals perform that can be considered as being more prosocial compared to giving help to another person or another group of individuals. In some dimensions of helping, people are more likely only to help those that are near to them either emotionally or physically. However, in other cases, this does not apply ( Banaji & Greenwald , 2016). For instance, the charities that one supports or the people that he or she decides to help by voluntarily writing them recommendation letters ought not to be targeted at the people that one knows or those in his or her group. The same applies to a myriad of other acts of helping that are consequential. This is because if a person desires, he or she can make a conscious decision, including one that may oppose his natural or first inclination in a bid to assist in cases that he or she believes desire help the most.
The authors posit that most individuals, including those that think otherwise, hold racial biases. This is exemplified by the presence of racial attitudes in such areas of the society a medicine, politics or business. In politics, bias is likely to be exhibited during the voting process ( Banaji & Greenwald , 2016). The book proposes that a significant portion of racial discrimination that is displayed today does not come from the attempt to harm people but rather from selective helping. In this regard, the authors argue that every individual is part of several groups. These groups may be defined by religion, race, family, gender or academic institutions among other factors. In this case, when someone goes out of his or her way to help a member of the in-group, the act is not perceived to be bad. Instead, by doing so, the person figures that the act makes him ‘good' ( Banaji & Greenwald , 2016). However, this exhibits selective privileging which reinforces the status quo. This is because it is through such acts that the rich continue to get richer while the other people fall behind. Ultimately, if an attitude affects a person’s behavior, that attitude is part of the individual. This is because both explicit and implicit attitudes undoubtedly affect behavior in various circumstances and both define an individual.
Implicit or unconscious bias describes the stereotypes or attitudes that affect people’s understanding, their decisions as well as their actions unconsciously ( Staats et al., 2015; Cameron et al., 2010; Glacer et al., 2014). These biases encompass both unfavorable and favorable assessments. Likewise, they are involuntarily activated without a person's intentional control or awareness. These biases reside in the subconscious and differ from those biases that people may decide to conceal with the aim of maintaining political or social correctness. In contrast, implicit biases cannot be assessed even through introspection. It has been argued the conceptual can be grounded on the realities of the real world. In this case, since implicit bias is both unconscious and automatic, individuals who engage in discrimination are unaware of their actions. Further, everyone is vulnerable to implicit biases ( Staats et al., 2015; Cameron et al., 2010). Thus, all individuals, irrespective of their group possess some degree of unconscious bias. These implicit associations people to have attitudes and feelings about other people based on such attributes as age, race, appearance or ethnicity. Further, the associations are developed from an early age and throughout an individual's life are driven by exposure to both indirect and direct messages. Besides this early life genesis, the implicit associations are also fueled by the news and media programming. Ultimately, exposure to attitudes about a social group that are held by the most immediate environment permeates peoples' minds without their active consent.
For decades, overt racism has been in decline. However, more subtle forms of the vice are still prevalent throughout the global population (Cameron et al., 2010). These forms of implicit biases cannot be recognized consciously and thus are not easy to control. Mainly, the biases are closely linked to various forms of discriminatory behavior. This may be expressed in the form of non-verbal negativity towards members of a particular out-group ( Banaji & Greenwald , 2016). It may also be in the form of the discriminatory severity of sentencing decisions for criminals or an increased likelihood of suspecting a harmless object to be a gun when it is specifically in the hands of a black person. In this case, implicit race biases may have outcomes that are morally relevant, and that the majority of the people would be unwilling to endorse explicitly. This proposition raises pertinent moral issues. For instance, since uncontrollable and unconscious processes occasion racial discrimination, then the question would be whether or not it is right to blame the perpetrators or to brand them as being morally responsible.
The moral views on discrimination are likely to be dependent on the chosen interpretation of implicit bias that is present in the consciousness of the public. There is a consensus amongst the different theories that implicit biases are bound to counteract intention as well as control. However, there is a division in scientific opinion with regard to the extent of the peoples' consciousness of their influence and presence. Cameron et al. (2010) argue that this deviation of opinion is rooted in the larger tension that is present in the field about what defines ‘implicit' in the context of implicit social recognition. He also reckons that this tension is responsible for spawning the various process accounts of the phenomenon of implicit race bias. On the one hand, implicit biases are viewed as being unconscious in nature. For instance, it has been argued that there is an existence of implicit, unconscious attitudes that should be viewed as being separate and at odds with conscious or explicit attitudes. With regard to the unconscious view of the implicit race bias, individuals harbor unconscious racial biases that surreptitious cause discriminatory behavior. The second argument is the notion that implicit biases are mainly automatic in nature. In this regard, implicit biases should be viewed as conscious attitudes that are also automatically activated. In the same breath, the biases are likely to influence behavior based on the extent of behavioral control. However, in the context of the busy nature of everyday life, the ability and motivation to control the biases are hard to come by. From the perspective of the automatic nature of implicit biases, it can be argued that people may be aware of their racial biases. However, they may experience difficulties controlling the influence of these biases. This take is related to the views expressed in the common reader book. While there is a presence of more complex nuances distinguishing the specific theories, it is undeniable that most current implicit bias theories fall into either of the two arguments on implicit social recognition.
I reckon that implicit racial bias ought to be viewed as a response to the indirect and direct negative influences that an individual has received since his or her childhood. For instance due to little contact with individuals of color when growing up via such avenues as family members, news and television programs, a white adult is likely to have a distorted view of African-Americans. Ultimately, his or her attitude towards African Americans is likely to be negative, unfounded and distorted. Various scholars agree that implicit bias leads to unconscious and negative attitudes that are beyond an individual’s control and normal cognition. Conversely, I think that in some cases, people may be aware of the existence of these negative attitudes. However, they are reluctant in acknowledging the attitudes openly because the attitudes conflict with the egalitarian values and social norms that are crucial in the society. I also reckon that majority of the people are aware that they exhibit some degree of stereotypical and prejudiced thinking but may be unaware of how powerful the negative associations are in influencing their behavior. This calls for more effort in resolving these disagreements so as to devise strategies capable of fighting against the exhibited implicit racial bias.
The society should be wary of implicit racial bias because its power is a threat to advancement. For instance, it can influence politics, policies and other vital anchors of the society. When viewed from this perspective, its ability to distort the ability of the citizenry to achieve success cannot be overstated. In the school setting, an instructor might believe that he or she bears equal expectation for the students while in essence; she may have a lower expectation for black students owing to their color. This phenomenon is likely to result in subtle differences in how she behaves towards the black students compared to their white colleagues. Ultimately, this difference in behaviors results in lowered performance by the students of color. A similar tendency may be exhibited in other critical arms of the society such as the criminal justice system. Here, the judges' decision making may be compromised. For example, studies on capital punishment have revealed that the individuals that kill whites are likely to receive the death penalty. However, the case is different for those that kill blacks. Likewise, the likelihood of black defendants to receive the death penalty is higher compared to white defendants. It has also been highlighted that the offenders with afro-centric facial features are likely to receive longer sentences compared to those that don't have the same. It is such issues as these that make implicit racial bias detrimental and Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People timely. Overall, while people may not completely get rid of their prejudices, it is important for them to counter these vices. The first step in this endeavor is to bring such hidden biases as implicit racial bias to fore.
References
Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (2016). Blindspot: Hidden biases of good people . Bantam.
Cameron, C. D., Payne, B. K., & Knobe, J. (2010). Do theories of implicit race bias change moral judgments?. Social Justice Research , 23 (4), 272-289.
Glaser, J., Spencer, K., & Charbonneau, A. (2014). Racial bias and public policy. Policy Insights from the Behavioral and Brain Sciences , 1 (1), 88-94.
Staats, C., Capatosto, K., Wright, R. A., & Contractor, D. (2015). State of the science: Implicit bias review 2015 (Vol. 3). Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity, The Ohio State University.
