Implicit bias can be defined as the unconscious or unintentional stereotypes that can influence one’s behaviour and choices, resulting, at times, in the demonstration of uncontrolled discrimination towards vulnerable groups (Cherry, 2023; Murphy et al., 2023). While implicit bias is extremely common (and ultimately unavoidable), it is important to understand that it does not imply that a person is hateful, nor predispose them to overt acts of discrimination (Cherry, 2023).
To examine my own experience and demonstration of implicit bias I chose to complete two separate assessments using the Implicit Association Test (IAT). I began by testing my implicit association of male-career and female-family – a topic on which I feel I have a decided view, but not necessarily an impassioned stance. This assessment revealed that I demonstrate a strong association between the concepts of male-career and female-family. As someone who has always considered themselves quite progressive, I found this result very surprising.
Following this initial result, I was interested to learn how else implicit bias might manifest in other areas on which I feel more strongly. Specifically, I chose to examine my implicit associations related to disability, given my experience as a parent to a disabled child as well as previous experience supporting individuals with disabilities in social and physical recreation. This assessment revealed that I demonstrate a moderate automatic preference for physically able individuals over those who are physically disabled. Though this result was closer to my own self-assessment (though I definitely demonstrate a strong automatic preference for my physically disabled individual) I was still surprised, as I had expected to demonstrate little to no preference one way or the other.
Further reflection on my results, combined with a brief dive into the literature, has allowed me to understand that, despite an outward and conscious acceptance of difference and penchant for equity, it is natural for one’s brain to sort and categorize information automatically based on various factors (Cherry, 2023). These include experiences, social conditioning (including culture, media portrayals, and upbringing), stress, and cognitive processes that encourage accelerated processing through use of patterns and heuristics (Cherry, 2023; Murphy et al., 2023). As someone whose female primary caregiver took on the majority of household and family responsibilities (cooking, laundry, childcare) and was the source of an immense amount of emotional support, it is likely unsurprising that I would cognitively associate female and family. It is even less surprising that I now personally demonstrate a lot of these same tendencies despite regular offers of assistance from my partner – it’s my job, isn’t it? Similarly, as a parent to a child with a disability my direct experiences have strongly coloured my understanding of this population and how they are viewed. I regularly and consciously work to dismantle disability stereotypes, leading, I assume, to a less strong automatic preference for able individuals or lesser association of disability and “bad”. I have, in essence, created my own algorithm that favours positive disability content, allowing me to “unlearn” negative societal evaluations that might otherwise predispose me to prejudice.
Equally important to creating awareness of one’s own implicit biases is understanding that (with effort) these can be unlearned (Murphy et al., 2023). Of note, the exercise of mindfulness is one way to observe one’s own thoughts and challenge automatic responses and discriminatory patterns (Murphy et al., 2023). Additional strategies include reflection, reframing (seeing an individual rather than a member of a specific population), exposure (spending more time with a diversity of individuals, asking questions, seeking correction) and alternate perspective-taking (walk a mile in their shoes) (Cherry, 2023).
In health promotion and community development specifically, seeking genuine collaboration with members of vulnerable populations is an important means of dismantling pervasive and unjust social structures, and adjusting individual and societal behaviour patterns which serve to (consciously and unconsciously) marginalize and oppress (Lines & Jardine, 2018). Practitioners should seek to facilitate the incorporation of diverse perspectives, dialogue, feedback, and collective action-taking at all stages and in all activities of program planning and development; recognizing this as a must have (not a nice to have) if goals of social justice and health equity are to be achieved (Chandanabhumma & Narasimhan, 2019). Conscious and intentional inclusion (that is not simply tokenism) can assist to overcome (unconscious) social exclusion, as well as empower vulnerable persons with the knowledge and belief that change can happen and assist them to develop the skills to make it so (Vogelpoel et al., 2013).
References
Chandanabhumma, P., & Narasimhan, S. (2019). Towards health equity and social justice: An applied framework of decolonization in health promotion. Health Promotion International, 35(4), 831–840. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/daz053
Cherry, K. (2023, March 31). How does implicit bias influence behaviour? Strategies to reduce the impact of implicit bias. Very Well Mind. https://www.verywellmind.com/implicit-bias-overview-4178401
Lines, L. & Jardine, C. (2018, April 30). Towards reconciliation efforts: The need for Indigenous voices in Indigenous health strategies. Canadian Public Health Association. https://www.cpha.ca/towards-reconciliation-efforts-need-indigenous-voices-indigenous-health-strategies
Murphy, J., Farrell, K., Kealy, M., & Kristiniak, S. (2023). Mindfulness as a self-care strategy for healthcare professionals to reduce stress and implicit bias. Journal of Interprofessional Education & Practice, 30, 100598. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.xjep.2022.100598
Vogelpoel, N., Gattenhof, S., & Shakespeare-Finch, J. (2013). Communicating personal amnesty: A model for health promotion in an Australian disability context. Health Promotion International, 30(3), 449–459. https://doi.org/10.1093/heapro/dat060
Comments