Article Summary
The article assesses implicit bias, an insentient tendency that exacerbates social discrimination and disparities. Various scholars have developed significant studies with the aim of developing informed programs and interventions to minimize and eradicate implicit bias. The methods and interventions developed were relatively ineffective and, as such, yielded few changes. However, according to Greenwald et al. (2022), the studies have been integral in correlating discriminatory judgment and behavior, implying that they have been central in various types of discrimination. The correlation succeeded in developing several remedies for individual interventions to eliminate the biases and various pieces of training aimed at groups to wipe out various types of biases, including implicit biases. The authors’ review of the individual treatment and group-based training programs revealed a significant gap in established methods that deals precisely with the issue of implicit biases durably. They deemed the two approaches ineffective in minimizing the devastating consequences of implicit biases elevating the need to assess strategic-based alternatives that have been effective in the public health sector.
The authors integrated a comprehensive review approach in accessing misunderstandings concerning implicit bias and their correction, available know-how, and uncertainties. This was adopted in an attempt to illustrate that implicit bias is a notable public health issue with tremendous negative impacts at an individual and societal level. According to Greenwald et al. (2022), various misunderstandings of implicit bias yield negative side effects that impact its reduction among the public. A significant misunderstanding is a perception that a good person does not exhibit implicit biases as they do not possess them, failing to comprehend that it is often influenced by an individual cultural atmosphere.
The authors denoted that there is a difference between explicit and implicit bias, its vulnerability to interventions, and its prevalence due to well-documented consequences. This was aimed at fostering an ideal comprehension of implicit bias in pursuit of effective methods of interventions. In developing and understanding the remediation for implicit bias, the authors highlighted the significance of understanding the existing knowledge. According to Greenwald et al. (2022), implicit bias is correlated to discriminatory behavior since they share causes and are shaped by identical developmental experiences. Significantly, the prevalence of implicit bias is more widespread than typically anticipated and possesses the potential to be evident in unaware individuals.
In the assessment, the authors derived that implicit biases are a public health issue that can be debiased by adopting strategy-based methods such as preventive and disparity-finding methods. Specifically, preventive measures possess the potential to eliminate discriminatory attitudes and behaviors by disrupting the process of their development. Assessing and addressing cognitive issues exacerbating the biases and developing interventions that disrupt the process can help the public become increasingly aware of their shortcomings. This will allow them to critically access their responses and ensure they make accurate and desirable decisions. Also, disparity-finding methods can aid in identifying biases that can be alleviated with relative ease or incorporate suggestions on various channels that feature the responsibility of helping develop an intervention (Greenwald et al., 2022). The findings highlighted that implicit bias is a multifaceted issue and, as such, requires a multi-pronged approach. This formed the basis for the recommendations made by the authors directed to organizations as a solution to workplace biases.
Discussion
In the current work environment, the article’s findings can be integral as implicit bias wreaks havoc, especially in eliminating the gender pay gap. According to research, even though the gender pay gap has not changed significantly for the last two decades, as of 2022, women received eighteen percent salary less than men, despite having identical education and experience. The difference is explained by the different treatment accorded to women workers by their employers (Aragão, 2023). The perception that women make different choices concerning work and family balance exacerbates the bias further. Unlike in fatherhood, where family pressures result in increased remuneration, women face low wages under akin circumstances. Similarly, men are more likely to assume top-level leadership than women as the perception of the weaker sex with little capability to perform when exposed to demanding roles takes effect (Nesmith, 2018). The article’s findings would be integral for business leaders and politicians when developing policies and programs aimed at debiasing biases.
Adopting preventive measures points to developing laws and policies that compel employers to refrain from discriminating against women from leadership roles and being accorded identical salaries. This would eliminate family and work pressures that result in low wages for women and high wages for men (Greenwald et al., 2022). The policies should be universal and initiated without a specific targeted group to ensure that men and women are treated equally in the workplace. Ideally, adopting the disparity-finding method involves the development of policies and strategies aimed at alleviating factors that exacerbate the gender pay gap biases. This applies to business leaders and policymakers to adopt the factors in making relevant decisions to fix the disparities (APS, 2022). Adopting the approaches can minimize the consequences of implicit bias in the general population and enhance equality, equity, and justice.
References
Aragão, C. (2023, March 1). The gender pay gap in the U.S. has not changed much in two decades. Pew Research Center. https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2023/03/01/gender-pay-gap-facts/.
Greenwald, A. G., Dasgupta, N., Dovidio, J. F., Kang, J., Moss-Racusin, C. A., & Teachman, B. A. (2022). Implicit-bias remedies: Treating discriminatory bias as a public health problem. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 23(1), 7–40.
Nesmith, J. (2018). Women’s Inequity in Pay: Could It Be Sexism, Implicit Bias, or Both?
Treat implicit bias as a public health problem, a new report recommends. (2022, May 19). Association for Psychological Science – APS. https://www.psychologicalscience.org/news/2022-may-pspi-implicit-bias.html
write