# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
There's no denying it, unconscious bias is trendy. It's so trendy, it's even become an acronym in some of my circles, known affectionately as "UB." But as often occurs when a term or concept becomes common or mainstream, myths and misinformation abound:

Myth 1: We don't need to worry anymore about conscious bias or bigotry. We are not "post-racial." Individual acts of verbal, physical and emotional violence against people due to their real or perceived group membership are still relatively common. One of my least favorite statistics is that the number of active hate groups in the U.S. has increased by 56 percent - to over 900 - since 2000, particularly since President Obama took office in 2008.

Myth 2: I don't have any unconscious biases. It's frightening to think we may not be 100 percent aware or in control of what we think and do. But brain science shows that if you're a human being, your brain operates through biases. Homo sapiens evolved to constantly and unconsciously make immediate decisions based on limited data and pre-existing patterns. We are descended from the more skittish members of our species, so we're hypersensitive to anything the old parts of our brain deems dangerous. Biases have thus served us for eons, and continue to do so, but are not effective in helping us interact effectively with diverse humans in today's workplace. Bias elimination is not only ineffective, it's impossible - the focus should be on bias reduction (see myth 5), choosing behaviors more mindfully, and mitigating any negative impacts of those behaviors. Check out "Blind Spot: Hidden Biases of Good People" for a fascinating read.

Myth 3: I know what my unconscious biases are. By definition, UB is - well - unconscious. You may have a sense of what some are, but be blind to others. Consider taking one or more of the well-researched Implicit Association Tests. Keep in mind that our UB can often conflict with our conscious beliefs and values, and we may even hold negative UB against our own group! I've been doing some form of intercultural or diversity work for almost 25 years and many of my early role models were African-American women, and yet I showed a negative bias toward African-American men on one of the tests. Rather than deny our UB, we can be curious about where they come from and how they get so ingrained in our minds despite our good intentions and be more mindful of our actions. UB only become problematic when they manifest in ineffective behaviors.

Myth 4: Hooray! Since everyone's biased, we can move on from that tired conversation about racism/sexism, etc.! Although everyone's biased, biases are not equal in their impact at a group level. Negative UB held by a numerical majority or power-dominant group have a disproportionate ability to do harm to numerical minorities or power non-dominant groups.

Myth 5: Since UB is unconscious, there's nothing I can do about it. Excellent suggestions abound about how to mitigate the effect of negative UB in talent management and hiring practices through awareness, calibration and effective behaviors. However, there seem to be few evidence-based strategies to reduce harmful negative biases in the first place other than these:

1) Awareness of what our particular unconscious biases are (Pope, Price & Wolfers, 2014).

2) Empathy, particularly "perspective taking," or the ability to feel or imagine what another person feels or might feel (Todd, Bodenhausen, Richeson & Galinsky, 2011).

3) Exposure to counter stereotypical role models. (Dasgupta & Asgari, 2004 and three other studies).

4) Exposure to positive images to counteract negative bias (Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001).

5) Using imagery to imagine alternatives to negative stereotypes (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001).

6) Training to improve one's ability to distinguish between faces of individuals in "other" racial groups (Lebrecht, Pierece, Tarr, & Tanaka, 2009, January).

What will you put in motion today to reduce the negative impacts of your unconscious biases?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Myths About Unconscious Bias - And 6 Ways to Reduce It

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
5 Myths About Unconscious Bias - And 6 Ways to Reduce It by Susana Rinderle There's no denying it, unconscious bias is trendy. It's so trendy, it's even become an acronym in some of my circles, known affectionately as "UB."

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
How prejudiced are you?

Most people think they're less biased than average. But just as we can't all be better than average, we can't all be less prejudiced than average. Although the message-and the success so far-of Barack Obama's presidential campaign suggests an America that is moving past traditional racial divisions and prejudices, it's probably safe to assume that all of us harbor more biases than we think.

© Tom Stone

Science suggests that most of us don't even know the half of it. A 20-year eruption of research from the field of "social neuroscience" reveals exactly how automatically and unconsciously prejudice operates. As members of a society with egalitarian ideals, most Americans have good intentions. But new research suggests our brains and our impulses all too often betray us. That's the bad news.

But here's the good news: More recent research shows that our prejudices are not inevitable; they are actually quite malleable, shaped by an ever-changing mix of cultural beliefs and social circumstances. While we may be hardwired to harbor prejudices against those who seem different or unfamiliar to us, it's possible to override our worst impulses and reduce these prejudices. Doing so requires more than just good intentions; it requires broad social efforts to challenge stereotypes and get people to work together across group lines. But a vital first step is learning about the biological and psychological roots of prejudice.
Modern prejudice
Here's the first thing to understand: Modern prejudice is not your grandparents' prejudice.

Old-fashioned racism and sexism were known quantities because people would mostly say what they thought. Blacks were lazy; Jews were sly; women were either dumb or bitchy. Modern equivalents continue, of course-look at current portrayals of Mexican immigrants as criminals (when, in fact, crime rates in Latino neighborhoods are lower than those of other ethnic groups at comparable socioeconomic levels). Most estimates suggest such blatant and wrongheaded bigotry persists among only 10 percent of citizens in modern democracies. Blatant bias does spawn hate crimes, but these are fortunately rare (though not rare enough). At the very least, we can identify the barefaced bigots.

Our own prejudice-and our children's and grandchildren's prejudice, if we don't address it-takes a more subtle, unexamined form. Neuroscience has shown that people can identify another person's apparent race, gender, and age in a matter of milliseconds. In this blink of an eye, a complex network of stereotypes, emotional prejudices, and behavioral impulses activates. These knee-jerk reactions do not require conscious bigotry, though they are worsened by it.

In my own lab, for example, we dug up dozens of images of societal groups that were identifiable in an instant: people with disabilities, older people, homeless people, drug addicts, rich businessmen, and American Olympic athletes. We asked research participants to tell us what emotions these images evoked in them; as we predicted, they reported feeling pity (toward the disabled and elderly), disgust (the homeless and drug addicts), envy (businessmen), and pride (athletes).

We then slid other participants into a functional MRI scanner to observe their brain activity as they looked at these evocative photos. Within a moment of seeing the photograph of an apparently homeless man, for instance, people's brains set off a sequence of reactions characteristic of disgust and avoidance. The activated areas included the insula, which is reliably associated with feelings of disgust toward objects such as garbage and human waste. Notably, the homeless people's photographs failed to stimulate areas of the brain that usually activate whenever people think about other people, or themselves. Toward the homeless (and drug addicts), these areas simply failed to light up, as if people had stumbled on a pile of trash.

We were surprised-not by the clear sign of disgust, but by how easy it was to achieve. These were photographs, after all, not smelly, noisy, intrusive people. Yet we saw how readily physical characteristics could evoke strong, immediate, and deep-seated emotional reactions. Results like these have obvious implications for racial prejudice, which is often elicited by similarly superficial characteristics. Indeed, a great deal of recent research has shown how our knee-jerk biases are directed toward members of other races.

Research by NYU psychologist Elizabeth Phelps and her colleagues has found that even dull yearbook photographs can trigger a strong neural response. When white men in their study briefly saw pictures of unfamiliar black male faces, their brain activity spiked in a region known as the amygdala, which is involved in feelings of vigilance generally, and in the fear response specifically; the amygdala lights up when we encounter people or events we judge threatening. Several other labs, including my own, have uncovered a similar link between amygdala activity and white people's perceptions of black faces.

Other research has uncovered more subtle forms of racial bias. In one study, neurosurgeon Alexandra Golby and her colleagues showed participants images of white and black faces. When white participants saw white faces, their brains showed more activity in a region that specializes in facial recognition than when they saw black faces; the same went for black participants when they saw black faces. For some reason, those other-race faces didn't register as human faces in the same way that same-race faces did. Later, all participants saw a series of white and black faces, some of which were new faces and some of which were faces they'd already seen during the brain scans. Sure enough, both white and black participants proved better able to remember people of their own race.

Work by Stanford psychologist Jennifer Eberhardt and her colleagues suggests that these rapid, unconscious facial perceptions can have deadly consequences. The researchers had participants analyze photos of African-American men convicted of murder, rating how "stereotypically Black" the men's facial features appeared. Some of the men had been sentenced to the death penalty; some had been given less severe sentences, though the participants didn't know which men were which. Even after controlling for relevant variables such as the severity of the murder and the defendant's facial attractiveness, socioeconomic status, and prior convictions, it turned out that black men were more than twice as likely to be sentenced to death if they had more "stereotypically Black" facial features. (However, this discrepancy only existed if the murder victim was white. The defendants were no more likely to get the death penalty if their victim was also black.)

Meanwhile, in studies mimicking how the police deal with criminal suspects, University of Chicago psychologist Joshua Correll and colleagues have shown that police officers, community members, and students playing a video game are faster to "shoot" an armed black man than an armed white man, but they're faster to avoid shooting an unarmed white man than an unarmed black man. Cultural stereotypes and emotional prejudices register on the brain as quickly as a fifth of a second-enough time to determine whether a suspect lives or dies.
Us vs. not-us
Years before these neuroscience findings, social psychologists had documented the instant (and unfortunate) associations people make toward "out-groups"-those groups they don't consider to be their own. Whether they differ by age, ethnicity, religion, or political party, people favor their own groups over others, and they do so automatically. We have always had codes: PLU (people like us), NOKD (not our kind, dear), the 'hood, the Man. Every culture names the "us" and the "not-us." It appears to be human nature, and many studies have shown how easy it is to provoke this kind of psychological distinction between our "in-groups" and "out-groups."

In one of the most famous of these studies, pioneering social psychologist Henri Tajfel showed teenage boys paintings by Klee and Kandinsky and asked them which artist they preferred. Tajfel then gave the boys the chance to distribute money to others who preferred the same artist, or to those who liked the other artist. The Klee boys were significantly more likely to give money to other Klee fans; Kandinsky boys were significantly more likely to share with other Kandinsky-ites. They proved decidedly loyal to their groups, even though they'd become affiliated with this group just minutes earlier, knew nothing else about their fellow group members, and ostensibly had nothing to gain from their group membership.

Similar studies have shown that people demonstrate strong preferences toward those wearing the soccer jersey of a team they like, people who share their birthday, and people who subtly resemble themselves, not to mention those of their own race or ethnicity.

Conditioned by millennia of tribal warfare and fierce competition for limited resources, we are always looking for cues to help us make snap judgments about others. Unfortunately, as we gravitate toward the familiar and the similar, all too often we rely on physical characteristics to determine whether someone is in our in-group or out-group. In that light, it's not hard to understand why so much prejudice is directed at people based on their race.

What's more, we all have to contend with our culture's influential role in shaping prejudice. Years, even generations, of explicit and implicit cultural messages-gleaned from parents, the media, first-hand experiences, and countless other sources-link particular physical appearances with a host of traits, positive or negative. The roots of these messages can stretch back centuries, as is the case with racism toward African Americans in the United States and its origins in the age of slavery. Such messages are absorbed, accepted, and perpetuated, often unconsciously, by our culture's members and institutions. That's how prejudices become so widespread and automatic.
A fight we can win
People have a tendency to think that biology is destiny. But just because we can correlate impulses in the brain with certain prejudices does not mean we are hardwired to hate drug addicts and homeless people, or that members of different races are destined to fear and mistrust one another.

In the neuroscience studies looking at race, for instance, amygdala (vigilance-related) reactions vary by individual, corresponding to other signs of prejudice. People who exhibit more prejudiced attitudes or behaviors, for example, show more amygdala response. And the alarms in Whites' amygdalas do not go off to famous black faces. Likewise, their brains grow accustomed to new black faces after repeated exposure.

Ohio State researcher William Cunningham has even found that, among Whites, black faces trigger more amygdala activity only when these faces were seen for a length of time (30 milliseconds) so short that it amounts to subconscious exposure. When Whites had the chance to see black faces for a bit longer (525 milliseconds) and process them consciously, their amygdala activity wasn't unusually high; instead, they showed increased activity in brain areas associated with inhibition and self-control. It was as if, in less than a second, their brains were reining in unwanted prejudices.

The most important lessons of this whole wave of research point to the complexity of the interactions between biology and environment.

Take the amygdala race results. When researchers just slightly change the social context in which people view photos of other races, we've seen changes in the ways their brains react to these faces.

In my own lab, for instance, we showed white study participants a series of photos, some of white faces and some of black ones. We gave them two seconds to answer one of three questions about the people in these photos: whether they were over 21, whether they had a gray dot on their face, or whether they liked a certain vegetable. When participants had to decide if the people in the photos were over 21, we saw a spike in their amygdala activity, similar to what had been found in the studies I mentioned earlier. But when they looked at these faces to judge what kind of vegetable the person would like, or when they were looking for a gray dot, their amygdala activity was the same as when they saw white faces.

In other words, when our study participants had to place others into a social category-even if it was by age, not race-they saw black faces differently than white faces. But the gray dot exercise showed it was possible for Whites to look at black faces without getting this effect. More important for everyday interactions, when participants were prompted to judge these people as individuals-individuals with their own unique tastes and preferences-they reacted no differently to black faces than they did to white ones. Similarly, my lab's latest brain scans indicate that people stop dehumanizing homeless people and drug addicts when they're made to guess what these people would like to eat, as if the study participants were running a soup kitchen.

What this research suggests is that the environment can interact with human nature for good or ill; social conditions can reduce prejudice, just as they can foster or exacerbate it.

Both science and history suggest that people will nurture and act on their prejudices in the worst ways when these people are put under stress, pressured by peers, or receive approval from authority figures to do so. We see this in hate crimes directed at homeless people, gays and lesbians, and all ethnicities; my former students Lasana Harris, Amy Cuddy, and I have argued that these processes lie at the root of prisoner abuse in settings such as Abu Ghraib.

Fortunately, research has also indicated which kinds of social conditions can reduce prejudice. For instance, a long line of my previous research indicates that putting people on the same team helps to overcome prejudices over time. In one study, my former student Steve Neuberg and I found that study participants had negative feelings toward a schizophrenic patient recently discharged from a mental institution-unless they were told they'd have to work with him for a chance to win a significant monetary prize. Then they noticed and judged him more by his own unique, individual traits, not by the traits associated with his stigmatized group.

Our results echo the famous "Robbers Cave" experiment led by Muzafer Sherif, a founder of social psychology. Sherif brought two groups of boys to separate parts of a campground and encouraged each group to bond as a team, not telling them about the other group at first. But as both groups became aware of the other one, a fierce rivalry developed between them. Yet Sherif and his colleagues soon posed a series of challenges to the groups that neither could solve without the help of the other. As they started to work together, their old tensions dissipated and they bonded across group lines.

These findings are part of a long line of research supporting what's known as the Contact Hypothesis, which states that under the right conditions, contact between members of different groups can reduce conflicts and prejudices. Decades of school desegregation research support this idea, as documented by University of California, Santa Cruz, professor emeritus Thomas Pettigrew and University of Massachusetts, Amherst, psychologist Linda Tropp.

Pettigrew and Tropp have found that school integration can in fact reduce prejudice among students from different groups, but simply placing these students together isn't enough to get them to see each other as individuals and shed their prejudices. We must also try to help them share common goals, on which they must cooperate to succeed; ensure that they're treated as equals and have positive, noncompetitive interactions with one another; and feel like their cross-group relationship has the support of authority figures. The more of these factors in place, the more likely people are to overcome their biases. This has proven to be true not only in schools but in a variety of other social institutions, from the military to public housing projects. Our biases are not so hardwired after all, given the right social engineering.

As a society, we engage in social engineering all the time, mostly by accident and without intending or even anticipating all the consequences. For example, we admit athletes and the children of alumni to colleges under unexamined kinds of affirmative action that dwarf racial affirmative action. Colleges even practice affirmative action for high school boys, whose grades and test scores on average are lower than girls'. Affirmative action by race is a more-examined form of social engineering, but it is only one among many.

Because of other forms of social engineering-the kind perpetrated by biased real estate agents and job interviewers-today we remain racially segregated in our neighborhoods and workplaces. This holds true even after accounting for social class. As a result, people are deprived of daily interactions with others who might seem superficially different from themselves, but who in fact share the same values, hopes, and fears.

When we allow our society to remain so segregated, as documented by my husband, sociologist Doug Massey, then all else follows: The less fortunate are exposed to violence and disorder, receive an inferior education, have fewer local job opportunities, and lack constructive role models. Once we understand how automatically people fear difference, dehumanize the less fortunate, and demonize the Other, we can better appreciate how these forms of segregation can perpetuate themselves, and why we must fight against them. The science of human prejudice suggests that, if we're informed and persistent, this is a fight we can win.

Greater Good wants to know: Do you think this article will influence your opinions or behavior?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
How prejudiced are you? Most people think they're less biased than average. But just as we can't all be better than average, we can't all be less prejudiced than average. Although the message-and the success so far-of Barack Obama's presidential campaign suggests an America that is moving past traditional racial divisions and prejudices, it's probably safe to assume that all of us harbor more biases than we think.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
© Staff Sgt. Mitch Miller, 29th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, Maryland National Guard
This article is the fourth in a series exploring the effects that unconscious racial biases have on the criminal justice system in the United States.
To understand what has been happening in Baltimore, Ferguson, and elsewhere in the United States, it helps to understand the differences between the old order of racial discrimination and bias and the new one.

The old order was grounded in explicit discrimination and hostility toward individuals who fell outside the acceptable boundaries of "whiteness." This order was closely tied to racism, which was explicitly institutionalized through prohibitions of race-mixing in various forms-from marriage and schools to buses and diners. It emanated from our policies at every level of government and deliberately molded our culture.

Most individuals-and virtually all sectors of American society-have come to consciously reject that old order. They embrace a public position of racial equality. Being a morally upright American has come to mean you refuse to consciously engage in behavior motivated by race or to act with consciously racist motivation. Many of the intentionally racist laws of the past have been struck down, and in many domains, racial discrimination is illegal.

Yet, racial inequality is a documented fact. The reality of police killing of unarmed blacks, on-going economic inequality between whites and non-whites, vitriolic and personal attacks on President Obama, or even the extreme reaction to a Cheerio commercial featuring a biracial family-all these make it clear that we are not "over" race.

So if few Americans harbor explicitly racist views, then what explains the persistence of racial inequality? For one of the answers to that question, we need to look to the unconscious mind, which plays a critical role in creating the discrepancy between our aspirations and our reality. The unconscious mind is partially the source of today's new order of racial discrimination and bias.

It's an order that shapes the behavior of people of all races. Baltimore may seem to be a clear example of the irrelevance of race, because some of the police involved in the death of Freddie Grey were blacks. The logic goes that blacks cannot have racial bias against other blacks, right? But unconscious-or "implicit"-bias is a social reality that affects everyone, even members of the targeted group.

The unconscious mind receives, stores, and sends information, akin to an automatic data manager for our life experiences. According to Bruce Lipton, a developmental biologist and author of The Biology of Belief:

[T]he subconscious mind, one of the most powerful information processes known, specifically observes both the surrounding world and the body's internal awareness, reads the cues, and immediately engages previously acquired (learned) behaviors-all without the help, supervision, or even awareness of the conscious mind.

The unconscious, more than the conscious mind, controls our daily decisions and actions, including how we relate to other people, especially those who look different from us. Research has uncovered overwhelming evidence that conscious egalitarian goals are often undermined by deeply rooted implicit biases. (For more on this research, see the first essay in this series.) But as the example of Freddie Gray suggests, the unconscious mind of a black person can assimilate pervasive anti-black messages even when the conscious mind resists. This can turn members of the same group against each other.

That's why trying to address racism purely at a conscious level alone won't move us forward. The work the conscious does is simply dwarfed by the work and efficiency of the unconscious mind. Therefore the conscious mind, by itself, cannot unravel what has already been internalized by the unconscious.

While understanding and addressing implicit bias is important, it should be clear the goal is not to eliminate bias, but rather the negative effects of bias. We need to create and foster new experiences that can override our biased beliefs in order to build an unconscious that functions from and seeks to reinforce mores of equality and fairness. We cannot move towards our goals of fairness and equality until we find ways to nurture the alignment of our unconscious with our conscious values.

Toward that end, Patricia Devine and her colleagues at the University of Wisconsin, Madison, have developed a step-by-step approach to recognize bias and aid in the reduction of unconscious racial bias:

Stereotype replacement: Recognizing that a response is based on stereotypes, labeling the response as stereotypic, and reflecting on why the response occurred creates a process to consider how the biased response could be avoided in the future and replaces it with an unbiased response.

Counter-stereotypic imaging: Imagining counter-stereotypic others in detail makes positive exemplars salient and accessible when challenging a stereotype's validity. Harvard psychology professor Mahzarin Banaji uses positive images on her screen saver to counter unconscious stereotypes-images of people from far-flung places, or in unfamiliar roles-in an effort to rewire her associations.

Individuation: Obtaining specific information about group members prevents stereotypic inferences, such as looking at data about how Asian-Americans or Latinos actually live.

Perspective taking: Imagining oneself to be a member of a stereotyped group increases psychological closeness to the stereotyped group, which ameliorates automatic group-based evaluations.

Increasing opportunities for contact: Increased contact between groups can reduce implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering their images of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group.

We must also recognize that the discrepancy between conscious egalitarian values and unconscious biases is not applicable to everyone. Some people do not hold consciously egalitarian values, and in fact embrace beliefs about the superiority of their own group and the inferiority of others. There are still people who are explicitly racist.

And as the U.S. has become more diverse, we've seen more and more racial anxiety around inter-racial interactions. When anxiety precedes interactions between different racial groups, the experience is far more likely to be negative-imbued with hostility and distrust. Racial anxiety is related to bias, and like bias, it is a barrier to fair treatment and equitable outcomes.

Even those who reject racial dominance may embrace the idea of "colorblindness," which is based on the notion that race is not real and does not matter. Colorblindness is the opposite of the kind of mindfulness that can decrease implicit bias. Its refusal to see race makes it impossible to see racial inequality, which in turn supports the status quo and makes it easier to blame marginalized groups for their conditions. The irony, however, is that we can never truly become a racially egalitarian society by remaining race-blind or by refusing to acknowledge that many aspects of our society continue to be arranged by race.
The six Baltimore Police officers who were charged in the death of Freddie Gray.
We must also recognize that addressing the problem of racial bias at only the individual level, while necessary, is insufficient. Addressing bias within structures and institutions is critical. We must support policies that challenge our culture of inequality and aim to dismantle and transform structural racialization. In order to reduce bias at the structural level it is important to monitor and improve the environment where action is being taken by collecting data and monitoring outcomes. As a society, we must set goals for moving towards greater equity and monitor our progress in achieving those goals.

The unconscious mind is the source of today's new order of racial bias-but that is not the same as old order racism. To have biases does not make one a racist. But it also does not relieve anyone of responsibility for addressing racial inequality. The new order does not depend on discriminatory intent or racist actors. To keep going, it needs only a lack of self-awareness. Understanding of this new order can aid us in addressing the killing in Baltimore without needing to first prove that the police are racist-and it helps all of us to avoid the mistake of thinking if we are not racist then there is no racial bias.

Greater Good wants to know: Do you think this article will influence your opinions or behavior?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Understanding Our New Racial Reality Starts with the Unconscious

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
© Staff Sgt. Mitch Miller, 29th Mobile Public Affairs Detachment, Maryland National Guard This article is the fourth in a series exploring the effects that unconscious racial biases have on the criminal justice system in the United States.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
A friend of mine recently told me about an incident involving students at Berkeley High School. On the first day of classes, African-American juniors and seniors were being asked by their honors course teacher to show him their schedule when they entered the classroom. The teacher, who was white, apparently assumed the black students were lost and in the wrong room, and his gesture made them feel unwelcome and humiliated.

This is an example of implicit bias-a behavior that arises from subconscious associations, which may even contradict someone's explicit values. Implicit racial bias plays a role in many classrooms and schools with potentially devastating effects. In one recent experiment with preschool teachers, researchers found that when teachers were primed to look for behavioral problems while watching a classroom video with black and white children (none of whom were misbehaving), teachers gazed much longer at black children than white children, as if anticipating the behavioral problems would come from the black children.

In another experiment from the same study, teachers read a vignette about a behavioral problem with a preschooler randomly identified as a black boy, black girl, white boy, or white girl, and then were given details about the child's background or not. Providing the background information on the child increased the severity of suggested disciplinary actions when the race of the teacher didn't match that of the child, supporting the idea that we are more inclined to punish those who look different from us.

In fact, disciplinary actions are more likely to be perpetuated against African Americans-boys and girls alike-than any other group of students, regardless of the infraction. And while it's understandable that teachers would want to prevent disruptions in the classrooms and take actions to avoid them, some seem to have little idea of how to do that without turning to ingrained biases.

Of course, teachers are not alone in having racial biases. Their behavior reflects how social messages are hard to escape, even for people of color. But studies like these show how racial disparities can be perpetuated in classrooms, too. If left unchecked, this kind of biased treatment can haunt a student well into elementary school and beyond, making the promise of "schools as the great social equalizers" a false one.

The good news is that teachers can learn to combat their prejudice, even the implicit kind, if they become more aware of it and take steps to actively fight it in themselves. Here are some of the ways that might help educators treat all of their students with dignity and care.

1. Cultivate awareness of their biases

Teachers are human and therefore influenced by psychological biases, like the fundamental attribution error, when we assume that others who behave in a certain way do so because of their character (a fixed trait) rather than in response to environmental circumstances. In-group bias leads us to assign positive characteristics and motivations to people who are similar to us.

Biases like these are natural, used as cognitive shorthand for making quick social judgments in ambiguous situations, especially those involving people from unfamiliar ethnic or social groups. They become a problem when we're not aware of their impact on other people. And if we're part of a majority group with more social, economic, or political power than a minority one, then accumulated unconscious bias can be extremely destructive, limiting the life opportunities and hurting the well-being of the minority group.

Many researchers believe that becoming more aware of our biases can help us improve our interactions with others, decrease our sense of unease in interracial contexts, and make better decisions. Though most of this research has been done with other professional groups or the general public, the same lessons are likely to apply to teachers.

However, many teachers feel pressures not to cop to those biases, perhaps out of fear they will be accused of racism. This leaves them blind to the ways that biases work at an unconscious level. Pretending to be colorblind is not helpful and in fact adhering to a color-blind philosophy has been shown to increase implicit bias, at least in college students. Admitting that we are all subject to biases creates a safer space to examine them more carefully and to take steps to fight them.

2. Work to increase empathy and empathic communication

Empathy -the ability to understand another's perspective and emotions-is important in all human social encounters, including teaching. Yet, often teachers have little understanding of the communities where their students live and have trouble understanding their perspectives, leading them to treat these students more harshly.

One solution: learning about the lives of students and showing that you care. At least one study has found that actively trying to take the perspective of another person-as opposed to trying to be "objective"-increased one's ability to not fall prey to stereotypical views of others. Actively inducing empathy for another person has been tied to a willingness to consider environmental circumstances more closely when handing out punishments for misbehavior. And, one recent study has found that training teachers in empathy cut down student suspension rates in half.

Though perhaps more research has been done on empathy in other professionals (such as physicians and police officers), teachers may want to take note of the ways that they have learned to increase their empathy through a combination of stress reduction, learning how to manage difficult emotions, and practicing empathic communication. Treating students with kindness and consideration is a sure way to bring out kindness in them, too.

3. Practice mindfulness and loving-kindness

Mindfulness practices-such as paying attention in a nonjudgmental way to one's breath or other sensations-has been shown to decrease stress in teachers, which can indirectly have an effect on reducing bias. But according to some research, mindfulness may also have a direct effect on bias reduction as well.

In one study, young white participants who listened to a 10-minute audiotape with instructions in mindfulness showed less implicit bias towards blacks and older people than those who listened to a 10-minute discussion of nature. This suggests that nonjudgmental awareness, even when not specifically focused on reducing prejudice, can help reduce unconscious biases.

Loving-kindness meditation-a practice that involves consciously sending out compassionate thoughts toward others-may also help. In a recent study, the random assignment of a short-term loving-kindness meditation reduced implicit bias toward a targeted group, though it didn't decrease implicit bias for other groups not targeted by the meditation.

4. Develop cross-group friendships in their own lives

While it's important to take steps in the classroom, the relationships we form outside of the classroom can also have an impact on bias.

Cross-group friendships have been shown in several studies to decrease stress in intergroup situations, to decrease prejudice toward outgroup members, and to decrease one's preference for social hierarchy or domination over lower-status groups. These findings alone might encourage teachers to seek out cross-group friendships in their lives so that they can be more receptive to the diverse students they find in their classrooms.

Another reason for teachers to consider developing cross-group friendships is that they may influence their students to do the same. When people see cross-group friendships working out in positive ways, they tend to be more willing to engage in cross-group friendships themselves.

In addition, positive cross-group friendships can have contagion effects in other people within social groups, turning whole communities into warmer, more receptive spaces for cross-group interactions. All of this bodes well for teachers role-modeling the kind of behavior they want to see in their students.

Of course, this doesn't necessarily mean teachers should indiscriminately approach someone just because they are from a different racial group. Instead, teachers can reach out to colleagues at work, or get involved in activities or perhaps attend events where people with different backgrounds and perspectives come together for a common cause. Developing friendships can be one of the best ways to break down barriers of prejudice, and it's more easily done when people have some common interests.

Is this a lot to ask, given all the burdens our society heaps on teachers? Perhaps. Teachers should get more support than they do, and, ideally, school districts should make reducing implicit bias a priority backed up with money, policy, and training. Individual teachers can only do so much.

Luckily, the teaching profession tends to attract altruists who want to teach in a way that helps their students. By working at countering implicit bias in themselves, they can truly make a difference in the lives of their students, making them feel safe, cared for, and welcome in the classroom.

Greater Good wants to know: Do you think this article will influence your opinions or behavior?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Four Ways Teachers Can Reduce Implicit Bias

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
We're all subject to bias. Here are tips to help teachers treat all of their students with dignity and care.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Eight tactics to identify and reduce your implicit biases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Unconscious prejudices and negative attitudes toward certain groups of people can compromise good health care when those prejudices involve patients or make the clinical workplace more difficult. Research shows that these unspoken biases can be changed, but individuals must recognize that they have them in the first place.

# data[].attributes.body
useful strategies for addressing implicit bias in most workplaces

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Implicit bias is action-oriented, and influences our judgment and behaviors as it relates to those groups considered, 'non-dominant'. They include African-Americans, Asians, Muslims and Latinx- the social groups whose heritages aren't traditionally Caucasian.

We address biases about these groups-'others'- by bringing to a conscious level our core beliefs about these groups. Many of these beliefs are based upon negative stereotypes, and continue to persist by minimal exposure to individuals within those groups.

It is a lack of exposure and experience with these groups that allow individuals to act in ways that are discriminatory and culturally and individually disrespectful, though often unintentionally.

Implicit bias represents the absence of broad cultural awareness and sensitivity. In public education settings, roughly 77% of teaching staff are white, and the student population is increasingly the 'other. While teachers may have the best of intentions for their students, these biases influence their ability to deliver equitable and quality education experiences.

Black and brown students are disciplined more harshly than their white counterparts for the same or similar 'offenses'. These children's behaviors are considered disruptive more often than not, and they are identified as special needs learners at greater numbers than are white children. Implicit bias at work!

The absence of any historical reference or experience that educators possess, regarding these groups, WILL and DOES negatively impact student learning performance and achievement outcomes. The lack of exposure to these groups makes it difficult to establish meaningful relationships with students and establish partnerships with students' families.

Family engagement is critical to student success, behaviors, attendance, and the reinforcement of classroom learning at home. Teachers are now being called upon to better understand the term 'implicit bias' and the impact it has on pedagogical competencies.

It remains debatable as to the theoretical origins of bias. Is it truly unconscious, or are we unwilling to face and acknowledge the biases we possess, though conscious? In principle, simple biases are not bad, if they do not impact any life except one's own.

Unfortunately, implicit racial/cultural biases are prejudices we act on in relation to others, as opposed to mere personal preferences.

If that preference applies to a work environment, then it is safe to assume that there will be an avoidance to working effectively with people from other social groups. Likewise, in the classroom. This breeds discrimination and persistent negative stereotyping. Implicit becomes explicit when actions, decisions and determinations are made with purposeful intent by individuals with fully conscious awareness and acknowledgement of their core beliefs.

When we stick to the familiar, we miss opportunities to flourish from the benefits of broad social exposure and experiences. At first, with little to no reference, there is uncertainty, which may underlie a fear-a fear of going outside of one's comfort zone...the familiar. After a period of time, that fear becomes better explained to one's self or others as a justified avoidance due to broadly attributed negative traits of the other. This produces an inexcusable excuse.

Biases prevent discovery and the identification of the positives which lie beyond. We find it more difficult to relate to one another, and more walls are manufactured. If one's biases are shared with and by others, and if there is a degree of power and influence among you, society begins to design systems and policies and practices which are congruent with that bias.

Where systems, policies and programs have been framed by a group with biased intent, individual group members' mindsets align. Moreover, when individuals within newer, updated systems, conceived in the same framework, perform required duties, unintentionally, the most liberal-minded individual will be called to act from within that biased framework.This is especially detrimental and counter-intuitive to equity and social justice.

Many research-based strategies are currently available for regulating implicit biases. One way to class these strategies is in terms of those that purport to the apparent associations /assumptions or what I label, 'immaculate perceptions' underlying implicit biases, compared with those that purport to leave implicit associations intact but enable one to control the effects of biases on judgment and behavior.
Change-based interventions
Intergroup contact (Aberson et al. 2008; Dasgupta & Rivera 2008; Anderson 2010 for discussion): long studied for its effects on explicit prejudice (e.g., Allport 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp 2006), interaction between members of different social groups appears to diminish implicit bias under some moderating conditions (e.g., equal status interaction) and not under others.

Approach training (Kawakami et al. 2007, 2008; Phills et al. 2011): participants repeatedly "negate" stereotypes and "affirm" counter-stereotypes by pressing a button labeled "NO!" when they see stereotype-consistent images (e.g., of a black face paired with the word "athletic") or "YES!" when they see stereotype-inconsistent images (e.g., of a white face paired with the word "athletic"). Other experimental scenarios have had participants push a joystick away from themselves to "negate" stereotypes and pull the joystick toward themselves to "affirm" counter-stereotypes.

Evaluative conditioning (Olson & Fazio 2006; De Houwer 2011): a widely used technique whereby an attitude object (e.g., a picture of a black face) is paired with another valenced[value associated with a stimulus- from negative to positive] attitude object (e.g., the word "brilliant"), which shifts the valence of the first object in the direction of the second.

Counter-stereotype exposure (Blair et al. 2001; Dasgupta & Greenwald 2001): increasing individuals' exposure to images, film clips, or even mental imagery depicting members of stigmatized groups acting in stereotype-discordant ways (e.g., images of female scientists).

Control-based interventions
Implementation intentions (Gollwitzer & Sheeran 2006; Stewart & Payne 2008; Mendoza et al. 2010; Webb et al. 2012): "if-then" plans that specify a goal-directed response that an individual plans to perform on encountering an anticipated cue. For example, in a "Shooter Bias" test, where participants are given the goal to "shoot" all and only those individuals shown holding guns in a computer simulation, participants may be asked to adopt the plan, "if I see a black face, I will think 'safe!'"

"Cues for control" (Monteith 1993; Monteith et al. 2002): techniques for noticing prejudiced responses, in particular the affective discomfort caused by the inconsistency of those responses with participants' egalitarian goals.

Priming goals, moods, and motivations (Huntsinger et al. 2010; Moskowitz & Li 2011; Mann & Kawakami 2012): priming egalitarian goals, multicultural ideologies, or particular moods can lower scores of prejudice on implicit measures.

The bulk of these interventions, in my opinion, are at high risk for being ineffective and/or non-sustainable without an integrated component that addresses culture-one's own and others. When there is implicit bias pertaining to race, it is important to acquire information and facts relative to individual and group cultural backgrounds. We must address history and social structures and systems and their designs as they may or may not influence or perpetuate bias and inequity.

Photo by rawpixel.com on Pexels.com

What is it that keeps us apart in a land so diversely populated? A global world demands teaching or parenting from within a global framework. As social and racial groups remain separated, yet increasing in physical proximity, formal education is the best avenue to cultivate a reality which mimics the world in which we say we wish to live, work and learn. The most sure strategy to mitigate the biases which create inequity and discord is as soon as children enter the classroom.

The biggest challenge to making this change, is the requirement of an altered educator mindset. That, too, begins in a classroom, boardroom, community room, or living room. Mindsets have to change before and in order that systems may change. Broader perspectives emerge from information, exposure and experiences.

Explicit bias and outright prejudice are persistent and, in some places, pervasive. It is, however, unclear who, if anyone, thinks that implicit bias is more important than explicit bias. Philosophers in particular have been interested in implicit bias because, despite the persistence and pervasiveness of explicit bias, there are many people-presumably many of you-who aim to think and act in unprejudiced ways, and yet are susceptible to the kinds of biased behavior researchers have studied.

This also may contribute to the mainstream complacence toward the very outrageous instances of bigotry and racism we see all too often in modern society. Implicit bias may also contribute causally to explicit bias, particularly in environments suffused with prejudiced norms.

Arguably the most common understanding is that "implicit" means "unconscious." But whatever is assessed by implicit measures is arguably not unconscious. Some structuralists argue that we do nothing but detract from addressing the massive segregation and divisiveness in the U.S., by focusing on the psychology of bias. Our focus should be on changing the socio-political structures themselves. One's mental state should not be necessary to understand or explain social injustice.

What happens in individual's minds is the product of social inequity rather than an explanation for them. Demographic research makes clear that psychological prejudice is a key driver of (for example) economic inequality and inequities in the criminal justice system ( Center for Policing Equity 2016). More broadly, no matter how autonomously certain social structures operate, people must choose to accept or reject those structures, to vote for politicians who speak for or against them, and so on. How people assess these options is at least in part a psychological question.

We may choose to identify ways in which psychological biases (whether implicit or explicit) might be key contributors to social-structural phenomena. For example, structuralists sometimes point to the drug laws and sentencing guidelines that contribute to the mass incarceration of black men in this country as examples of systemic biases.

Sometimes, however, when these laws and policies change, discrimination persists. While arrests have declined for all racial groups in states that have decriminalized marijuana, black people continue to be arrested for marijuana-related offenses at a rate of about 10 times that of white people (Drug Policy Alliance 2018). This suggests that psychological biases (belonging to officers, policy makers, or voters) are an ever-present part of systemic inequity.

Additional research must be conducted, such as: research on implicit bias in legal practices and in medicine, on the development of implicit bias in children, on implicit inter- group bias toward non-black racial minorities, such as Asians and Latinx, and cross-cultural research on implicit bias in non-Western countries.

On changing or controlling implicit bias, arguably the most pressing question, is about the durability of psychological interventions once individuals leave the lab/ learning environment. How long will shifts in biased responding last? Will individuals inevitably "relearn" their biases?

Can shifts in individuals' attitudes create environments that provoke more egalitarian behaviors in others? Moreover, what has (or has not) changed in people's feelings, judgments, and actions now that research on implicit bias has received considerable public attention?

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implicit bias is action-oriented, and influences our judgment and behaviors as it relates to those groups considered, 'non-dominant'. They include African-Americans, Asians, Muslims and Latinx- the social groups whose heritages aren't traditionally Caucasian. We address biases about these groups-'others'- by bringing to a conscious level our core beliefs about these groups.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Micro Aggression in the Workplace Micro Aggression Video Micro Aggression Training Classroom Micro Aggression How to Deal with Micro Aggression What Is a Micro Aggression Videos About Micro Aggression Micro Aggression Get Out Micro Bias Micro Aggression Scenarios at Work Micro Aggression Racism Micro Aggressive Behavior Microaggressions HR YouTube MicroAggression

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Below is a list of resources to learn more about unconscious bias. Please click on the link at the bottom of the page to sign up for a live, in-person unconscious bias training session at UCSF. You can also explore a more comprehensive list of recent and classic implicit bias literature.

1. E-Learning Seminar: What You Don't Know: The Science of Unconscious Bias and What to do About It in the Search and Recruitment Process. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

2. Exploring Unconscious Bias in Academic Medicine. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

3. Project Implicit. Link to the Implicit Association Test (IAT)

4. Proven Strategies for Addressing Unconscious Bias in the Workplace. Includes an overview of unconscious bias and includes case studies to eplore the impact of unconscious bias in the workplace. Diversity Best Practices. Sponsored by Cook Ross.

5. State of the Science: Implicit Bias Review 2014. Kirwan Institute for the Study of Race and Ethnicity.

6. The New Science of Unconscious Bias: Workforce & Patient Care Implications. This program explores the scientific basis for this new understanding of human bias and the implications of unconscious bias theory for the health care system both in terms of workforce bias and in terms of threats to clinical objectivity.

7. The Science of Equality, Volume 1: Addressing Implicit Bias, Racial Anxiety, and Stereotype Threat in Education and Health Care. Perception Institute.

8. Unconscious Bias. Cook Ross. Learn more about unconscious bias. Includes links to learn more about training and thought leadership in unconscious bias.

9. Unconscious Bias Training for the Health Professions. Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC).

10. Women in Science. This special issue of Nature takes a hard look at the gender gap - from bench to boardroom - and at what is being done to close it.

11. The Neuroscience of Unconscious Bias. The American Bar Association Litigation Section.

12. Unconscious Bias in Academic Medicine. Proceedings of the 2017 AAMC Diversity and Inclusion Innovation Forum.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Linda Centore, PhD, APRN, Clinical Professor, School of Dentistry on resources for unconscious bias. (Transcript) Below is a list of resources to learn more about unconscious bias. Please click on the link at the bottom of the page to sign up for a live, in-person unconscious bias training session at UCSF.

# data[].attributes.body
Implicit Bias Analysis Guide

# data[].attributes.body
A good discussion starter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reducing The Role Of Implicit Bias In Early Childhood Education Settings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spread the loveImplicit bias is defined as the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. While bias is inescapable, that does not mean that it shouldn't try to be minimized or addressed.

# data[].attributes.body
*19 Minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our lives, our cultures, are composed of many overlapping stories. Novelist Chimamanda Adichie tells the story of how she found her authentic cultural voice -- and warns that if we hear only a single story about another person or country, we risk a critical misunderstanding.

# data[].attributes.body
Podcast

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Where do our minds live? A simple, scientific response would be to say our minds live in our brains. But Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji says we should not think of our minds as being solitary.

"The individual mind sits in society. And the connection between mind and society is an extremely important one that should not be forgotten."

Banaji is one of the creators of the Implicit Association Test, a widely-used tool for measuring a person's implicit biases. She says it's important to acknowledge that problems rooted in prejudice cannot be solved by finger pointing.

"One of the difficulties we've had in the past is that we have looked at individual people and blamed individual people. We've said if we can remove these 10 bad police officers from this force, we'll be fine. And we know as social scientists - and I believe firmly - that that is no way to change anything."

This week on the Hidden Brain radio show, we examine research about the mind of the village. We'll begin with a focus on police shootings of unarmed black men. Later in the show, we look at how biases affect judges in the U.S.
Additional Resources:
This episode includes references to research by Mahzarin Banaji, Eric Hehman, Seth Stephens-Davidowitz, Joshua Correll, and Maya Sen. You'll also hear from Philip Tetlock.

Copyright 2020 NPR. To see more, visit https://www.npr.org.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
The Mind Of The Village: Understanding Our Implicit Biases

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Where do our minds live? A simple, scientific response would be to say our minds live in our brains. But Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji says we should not think of our minds as being solitary. "The individual mind sits in society. And the connection between mind and society is an extremely important one that should not be forgotten."

# data[].attributes.body
Examples  in classrooms

# data[].attributes.body
A deep dive in to the topic

# data[].attributes.body
A 20 minute activity

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
This activity teaches students to recognize how different audiences can interpret language and microaggressions. It teaches students to understand the implications of their speech.

Students will learn to identify microaggressions and will be able to reflect on how they can modify questions or comments in ways that are less likely to reflect stereotypic assumptions and beliefs. Using two versions of the worksheet provides more examples for students to consider, but the activity works equally well with either version.

Estimated Time

10-20 minutes

Group Size

This activity works best with a class size of 30 or fewer, but could be modified for larger class by having students work in groups. For larger classes, the instructor can rotate among the groups during discussion and/or have teaching assistants facilitate discussion in the smaller groups.

Instructions

This activity will be more effective if the instructor first defines microaggressions and provides examples of how they operate. Then, pass out the worksheets so that different groups have different versions of the activity (there are five possible versions). Ask students to follow the provided instructions. Students then answer the discussion questions and discuss them in small groups or as a whole class. A sheet with suggested interpretations, possible intent, and possible impact is also provided for Instructor use. We thank Angela Linse, Executive Director and Associate Dean of the Schreyer Institute for Teaching Excellence at Pennsylvania State University for creating this list, for suggesting additional microaggressions, and for providing other feedback on this activity.

Materials:

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
This activity teaches students to recognize how different audiences can interpret language and microaggressions. It teaches students to understand the implications of their speech. Students will learn to identify microaggressions and will be able to reflect on how they can modify questions or comments in ways that are less likely to reflect stereotypic assumptions and beliefs.

# data[].attributes.body
A good discussion starter

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Reducing The Role Of Implicit Bias In Early Childhood Education Settings

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Spread the loveImplicit bias is defined as the attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious manner. While bias is inescapable, that does not mean that it shouldn't try to be minimized or addressed.

# data[].attributes.body
Examples in the office and what you should do to stop them

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Microaggressions against women persist. The New York Times recently published an about sexism, harassment, unequal pay and daily microaggressions at Sterling Jewelers. In the same week, Whitney Davis shared her experience as a black woman working at CBS and the macro and microaggressions she experienced there - one example:

"There were two black women working in production on the broadcast - myself and another. We both held the lowest-ranking positions on staff. Not uncommon in most predominantly white institutions, most of our white colleagues had trouble keeping our names straight. As a joke, they began to call us We-Dra - short for Whitney and Deidra."

During my keynote presentations, I ask audiences of men, managers and leaders how they deal with the microaggressions that they witness in the workplace. Typically, only a couple of people have a ready answer.

Confronting someone's negative or biased behavior is difficult. One of the best ways to do so is to be prepared with what you'd want to say or do to address negative behavior. But first you need to know what to look for.

Microaggressions v. Macroaggressions

Macroaggression occurs on a systemic level. For instance, unequal pay practices or conditions for a certain group of people. In contrast, microaggressions are intentional or unintentional verbal or nonverbal behaviors that occur in everyday interactions. They are often unacknowledged, and casually degrade, demean, or put down someone who is part of a group (for instance, a gender, race, or ethnic group). According to this research, 64% of women are exposed to this form of discrimination, with non-white women experiencing it more than anyone else.

Microaggressions can be around race or gender. Gender microaggressions include sexual objectification, the use of sexist language, making assumptions based on gender, the use of sexist humor, slights, insults, or using a derogatory analogy. Some of these subtle and not-so-subtle actions or comments may not seem like a big deal and one incident in isolation may not be. But, in reality, these types of incidents inhibit women from doing their best work, being optimally productive and undermine their success. Women and people of color (POC) cite these types of disrespectful, sometimes toxic behaviors as one of the factors that influence their decisions to leave a job. A steady diet of microaggression disconnects and wears people down. When they cite these types of behaviors as factors that lead to a reluctant decision to leave a job that they otherwise like, they describe it as "death by a thousand cuts".

Here are five examples of microaggressions in the workplace:

Microaggression 1: No, I'm not your sweetheart

Calling women by seemingly endearing names is often not appreciated and many women find it offensive. For example, the leader of a very large company in Latin America shared with me how much she hates it when one colleague calls her reina.

Microaggression 2: Same Behavior, Different Description

As one woman at a New York City tech start-up company told me, "I'm constantly aware that I am the only women that works at the company, as I am regularly told how much 'nicer' I am to work with than any of the other guys at my company." Although this may seem like a compliment, that's not how most women would take it. Women who negotiate for a promotion or an increase in their compensation are 30 percent more likely to receive feedback that they are "bossy", "too aggressive", or more "intimidating" than men who negotiate for the terms of their compensation.

This type of microaggression occurs when people describe a woman's actions in ways that would not be used to describe a man who did the same things. For example, labeling a woman as too nice to be able to do a job, bossy, a drama queen, too aggressive, needy, high-strung, and so on.

Observations of venture capitalists in Sweden, of all places-one of the most gender equal countries in the world-show just how differently men and women are sometimes viewed. Entrepreneurs who pitched during 2009 and 2010 were described these ways. Male entrepreneurs were described as "young and promising" whereas women were described as "young and inexperienced." Men as "experienced and knowledgeable," but women as "experienced but worried." Men as "cautious, sensible and level headed but women as too cautious and unsure."

Microaggression 3: Benevolent Sexism

During a keynote presentation at a global company, a leader relayed how he regularly tells one of his female employees, a new mom, who often works late, that she should go home. I asked him if he asks the same question of new dads on his team?

Psychologists Peter Glick, Ph.D., and Susan Fiske, Ph.D., call this benevolent sexism Their research indicates that men who exhibit this type of microaggression are less likely to give women candid feedback and challenging assignments. Direct, performance-based feedback and challenging assignments are critical to everyone's advancement and women already get both less than men do.

Benevolent sexism is believing or acting as if women are weak and need the protection of men. An example is thinking or saying that a woman would not want the same type of stress, workload or challenging assignment as a man.

Microaggression 4: Underestimating

Women report that they are regularly underestimated by colleagues and clients. At a Harvard Business School conference I spoke at, professional women shared these experiences:

People assume I am not in a technical role at my tech company.

My skills/intelligence have been underestimated and I'm assumed to not be ambitious.

I'm asked to take notes or do other admin tasks not asked of others.

Although I was the most senior member at the meeting, the potential partners ignored me, shook hands with my male subordinates because they assumed that I was the analyst and that one of the men was the team leader.

I was referenced as the secretary by a client on a conference call

Ignored and "invisible" as a black woman.

Microaggression 5: Invasion of Space and Inappropriate Touching

Touching women without their consent: you would think that this could go without saying, but it still happens. Your default should be to not touch the people you work with. Even though your intentions may be completely harmless and even "supportive physical contact" in your opinion - like putting you hand on a woman's shoulder or arm - it should be avoided. One woman recently shared, "men regularly put their hand on my lower back when they pass by me, and I don't like it".

If you're in a country where people automatically kiss each other's cheeks, greet women according to culturally accepted norms if it seems to be expected. Follow the woman's lead who you meet with, or ask a female colleague or coworker who lives in that country for guidance/advice.

Infringing on someone's space as a microaggression is about more than inappropriate touching. Women express frustration that their male colleagues often disrespect their space. Examples include " manspreading ", leaving belongings on other peoples' desks, and not moving out of the way to make room for others while walking down the hallway.

When we enter a room, we bring ourselves physically and we carry with us our privileges, societal expectations, and habits. Not being aware of your own behavior and demeanor puts the burden on your coworkers to figure out how to navigate them. As an example, if male, white, or upper level management, you bring much more than your body into a room.

What You Can Do Instead: Micro-inclusions

In the coming weeks we will be sharing quick impactful interventions - micro inclusions - that you can use to become a better colleague.

Eliminating slights in the workplace is the most minimal action you can take to remove obstacles to a level playing field and success.

In the meantime, here are a few things you can do:

1. If you have experienced microaggression, share your story with us on or contact us on our .

2. for our newsletter to receive actionable advice that will help you succeed at work and improve how you interact with your colleagues.

Why Does it Matter?

Because, you want to treat your colleagues and clients with respect and would not want to insult or demean them. Because you want a more equitable, high-performing workplace where unconscious bias is interrupted and minimized. Because you know that diverse teams are higher performing than homogeneous ones. Because you want to do what's right!

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
5 Examples of Microaggressions in the Workplace - The Way Women Work

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Microaggressions against women persist. The New York Times recently published an about sexism, harassment, unequal pay and daily microaggressions at Sterling Jewelers. In the same week, Whitney Davis shared her experience as a black woman working at CBS and the macro and microaggressions she experienced there - one example: "There were two black women working in production on the broadcast - myself and another.

# data[].attributes.body
8 minute video where students share  experiences

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Verona Area High School Students on Microaggressions...

# data[].attributes.body
A quick read

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
An Asian-American student is complimented by a professor for speaking perfect English, but it's actually his first language. A black man notices that a white woman flinches and clutches her bag as she sees him in the elevator she's about to enter, and is painfully reminded of racial stereotypes. A woman speaks up in an important meeting, but she can barely get a word in without being interrupted by her male colleagues.

There's a name for what's happening in these situations, when people's biases against marginalized groups reveal themselves in a way that leaves their victims feeling uncomfortable or insulted: microaggressions.

You may have heard the term if you've read up on psychology, the academic field where the term was born, or if you've spent time perusing Twitter and Tumblr, where it's had a recent resurgence.

The renewed embrace of the concept has aggravated some who think "microaggressions" simply describes situations in which people are being much too sensitive. At the same time, it's also provided a common vocabulary for those who want to put a label on the specific type of daily indignities they face. And in a society in which explicit racism is frowned upon (and thus, not a daily problem for most people) but implicit biases are going strong, there's probably more use for it now than ever before.

The word "microaggression," like the behaviors it describes, is probably going to be with us for some time, so it's worth understanding what it means.

What makes microaggressions different from other rude or insensitive actions or comments?

Microaggressions are more than just insults, insensitive comments, or generalized jerky behavior.

They're something very specific: the kinds of remarks, questions, or actions that are painful because they have to do with a person's membership in a group that's discriminated against or subject to stereotypes. And a key part of what makes them so disconcerting is that they happen casually, frequently, and often without any harm intended, in everyday life.
They happen casually, frequently, and often without any harm intended
This is how psychologist Derald W. Sue, who's written two books on microaggressions, defines the term: "The everyday slights, indignities, put downs and insults that people of color, women, LGBT populations or those who are marginalized experiences in their day-to-day interactions with people."

As he explained in the video below, which provides an overview of the concept, microaggressions often appear to be a compliment or a joke, but contain a hidden insult about a group of people (as in the example above, about the Asian-American student's English, or when a lesbian is told, "You don't look like you're gay!" )

Where did this term come from, and why are we suddenly hearing it so much?

Back in the 1970s, Harvard University professor Chester M. Pierce coined the term "microaggression" to describe the insults and slights he had witnessed against black people.

These [racial] assaults to black dignity and black hope are incessant and cumulative. Any single one may be gross. In fact, the major vehicle for racism in this country is offenses done to blacks by whites in this sort of gratuitous neverending way. These offenses are microaggressions. Almost all black±white racial interactions are characterized by white put-downs, done in automatic, preconscious, or unconscious fashion. These mini disasters accumulate. It is the sum total of multiple microaggressions by whites to blacks that has pervasive effect to the stability and peace of this world.

The word was revived, mostly in academic circles, and applied to other minority groups when Sue, a professor of psychology at Columbia Teacher's College, began using it in his writing around 2007.

Given the way social media gives a rare platform to a lot of the same groups who field these sorts of daily insults, it's caught on and has become a popular topic of discussion on Twitter and Tumblr, especially among young people.

Harvard University students' " I, Too, Am Harvard" campaign - a collection of photos and testimonials about the microaggressions black students experienced - was hugely popular. There are Tumblrs dedicated to chronicling microaggressions at colleges including St. Olaf University, Swarthmore College, Oberlin College, Dartmouth College, and Smith College, too.
People have embraced it because it described things that are really happening to them
Here, students quote the things people have said to them ("You're so lucky to be black - so easy to get into college," and "You can't be a woman if you can't reproduce,") and vent about their frustrations with the types of comments they have to field ("'What are you?' is not an introduction").

In an April 2014 interview with USA Today, Sue that he was happy to see the term go "mainstream" and said he'd noticed that college students found microaggressions "experientially true." In other words, people have embraced it because it described things that are really happening to them.

How do microaggressions actually harm people?

Research has shown that microaggressions, although they're seemingly small and sometimes innocent offenses, can take a real psychological toll on the mental health of their recipients. This toll can lead to anger and depression and can even lower work productivity and problem-solving abilities.
Microaggressions can even cause physical health problems
Plus, they can affect a work or school environment, making it more hostile and less validating and perpetuate stereotype threat (the fear of confirming existing stereotypes about one's group, which can have a negative impact on confidence and achievement).

None of this is hard to imagine if you simply consider how it would impact your life if you felt like you were subject to a constant stream of insults and slights and were always bracing for or recovering from an offense. It's not just about being upset, though: some researchers have found that microaggressions can even cause physical health problems.

Are microaggressions the same as racism, sexism, and homophobia?

They are based on some of the same core ideas about people who are minorities or are marginalized in America (for example, that they're not smart, that they don't belong, or that they make good punchlines), but microaggressions are a little different from overtly racist, sexist, or homopohobic acts or comments because they typically don't have any negative intent or hostility behind them.

Sue explained in his video primer on the topic, "People who engage in microagressions are ordinary folks who experience themselves as good, moral, decent individuals. Microaggressions occur because they are outside the level of conscious awareness of the perpetrator."

"It (is not) the overt racists, the white supremacists, the Klan, the skinheads," he told USA Today. But, he clarified, in some ways, this makes them all the more dangerous. The outright bigots, he explained, "are less likely to affect the standard of my living than individuals who are well-intentioned - educators, employers, health care providers - who are unaware of their biases."
"People who engage in microagressions are ordinary folks"
In this way, microaggressions are closely tied to implicit biases, which are the attitudes, stereotypes, and assumptions that we're not even aware of, that can creep into our minds and affect our actions (also known as, " thoughts about people you didn't know you had.")

A person with implicit bias against black people might have trouble connecting "black" with positive terms on the Implicit Association Test, a computerized test designed to measure how closely we associate certain topics in our minds. It's fair to guess that that same person might be someone who gets a little nervous - and shows it - when she first sees a black man in the elevator she's about to enter. So, more than expressions of conscious prejudice or intentional bigoted statements, you can think of microaggressions as implicit biases come to life in our everyday interactions.

And yes, just like we all harbor various prejudices, we've all probably subjected someone to a microaggression at some point in life.

Are people who complain about microaggressions being too sensitive?

In some camps, there's intense hostility to the idea that an "innocent" remark would ever be labeled problematic. All you have to do is glance through the comments on Sue's YouTube video on microaggressions to see examples of this attitude.

Here's one: "I have to say the analyzation of micro aggression is annoying to me. Our society is a society of over sensitive people. What happened to being intelligent enough to understand that people are going to react, and sometimes do inconsiderate things. It is my feeling that our society will never be eutopean enough to completely eradicate micro aggressions. Therefore the sooner we stop wasting energy on pointing out natural human behaviors, the sooner we can put that energy to better, more productive fields of study." (sic)

And another one: "As we say out my way, Eat some concrete and harden the fuck up princess. Fuck your mico microaggression, i'll give you some real aggression." (sic)

Some of these reactions are more thoughtful and come from Sue's peers in academia. In rebuttal letters to his 2007 American Psychologist article on microaggressions, some accused Sue of blowing the phenomenon out of proportion and manufacturing the perception of harm where none exists.

"Implementing his theory would restrict rather than promote candid interaction between members of different racial groups," Kenneth R. Thomas, PhD, of the University of Wisconsin-Madison, told the American Psychological Association Monitor. Thomas, a white male, said he believed that "the [microaggression] theory, in general, characterizes people of color as weak and vulnerable, and reinforces a culture of victimization instead of a culture of opportunity."
This criticism seems to fit into a larger conversation about multiculturalism and "political correctness"
This criticism seems to fit into a larger conversation about multiculturalism and " political correctness" in which opposition often includes an underlying disbelief in the seriousness of the claims of marginalized people or a sense that it is too much trouble or impractical to cease the behaviors that they say cause them harm.

What do I do if I want to avoid subjecting people to microaggressions?

In short: make an effort.
Stop for a beat and think before you speak, especially when you're weighing in on someone's identity
It's not very hard to put some thought into the biases you might hold, become curious about the way your words and actions are perceived by others, listen when people explain why certain remarks offend them, and make it a habit stop for a beat and think before you speak, especially when you're weighing in on someone's identity.

In his video on microaggressions, Sue offered five suggestions for things individuals can do to avoid them:

1. Be constantly vigilant of your own biases and fears.

2. Seek out interaction with people who differ from you (in terms of race, culture, ethnicity, and other qualities).

3. Don't be defensive.

4. Be open to discussing your won attitudes and biases ad how they might have hurt others or in some sense revealed bias on your part.

5. Be an ally, by standing personally against all forms of bias and discrimination.

Bonus tip: Peruse the many examples of microaggressions that have been chronicled in articles, in academic research, and using social media. Once you hear about how they affect people, chances are, you will be more aware of what they look like, and suddenly much less likely to repeat them.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Six things to know, especially if you want to avoid being a jerk.

# data[].attributes.body
18 minutes

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Verna Myers: How to overcome our biases? Walk boldly toward them

# data[].attributes.body
20 minutes

# data[].attributes.body
Common Examples

# data[].attributes.body
Easily adaptable for your PD

# data[].attributes.body
Video: Language may be offensive to some

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How microaggressions are like mosquito bites • Same Difference

# data[].attributes.body
Examples in the work place (the slide below can be easily omitted)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
"I had an office full of white women ask to look at my lips because they were reading a mag about lip fillers and wanted to see how they would turn out. I said, 'You know, when I was kid I hated my lips. But my mom told me that women all over the world pay money for lips like mine. I guess that's y'all.' I shrugged and turned back to my computer screen. They got real quiet and really didn't say shit to me for the rest of the day." -Loretta C. Ruff-Edwards, Facebook

"I'm a teacher. I was talking with one of my co-workers when another co-worker walked in and started talking about how worried she was that her daughter was going to Ecuador.

She said she was scared because her daughter is 'white, tall, and blonde, and is going to be surrounded by Mexicans.' My response: 'Well, they aren't Mexican. They are from Ecuador.' Her response: 'Well, whatever. Same thing.' I replied with, 'Nope, not the same thing. That's racist and I'm offended,' and then I walked out of the room.

There was some very serious tension the rest of the school year until it boiled down to the both of us sitting in the main office to have a mediation session. She apologized for her comment stating, "I'm not racist, I work in a school that has African-Americans!" She then asked me to apologize for calling her racist. I didn't."

- sarapara725

"This happened while I was in college, but a fellow student was surprised that I was able to 'articulate my viewpoints' so well after learning that my parents were West African immigrants. Like, what? Whenever I get stupid comments like that, I stay completely calm and repeatedly ask the offending party, 'What do you mean by that?', as if I don't understand. Usually they realize that what they said was totally inappropriate and it forces them to unpack their idea, just like my profs. taught me. 😉" -Seynique Smythe, Facebook

iamijurmann

"Working at Target as a teen, my direct managers were amazing but the upper management SUCKED. One day I was talking with a co-worker about hapa life and didn't realise the extremely closed-minded store manager, an older white male, was listening in. He confronted me later during my shift, saying I lied on my application because I'm not 'yellow' or 'slim-eyed.' He tried to fire me in FRONT OF THE WESTERN ASIAN CUSTOMERS whose transaction I was completing. Thankfully, a few of my direct managers who had met my whole family came to my rescue. Needless to say, he doesn't work there anymore." - iamijurmann

"Once I wore my hair down (read: blown out and curled), and a co-worker complimented me then questioned if it was a piece or a wig. I told her I don't wear weave or wigs. She said, 'Oh, because such and such (another black co-worker) sometimes wears wigs.' WHAT 👏🏾DOES 👏🏾THAT 👏🏾HAVE 👏🏾TO 👏🏾DO 👏🏾WITH 👏🏾ME?!! SMH!!" -Latisha Williams, Facebook

"My cubicle partner is black and has natural hair. She has a pretty big afro, and at least once a week someone asks me if I think her hair is unprofessional, if it violates the dress code, or if it distracts me. No, Kathy. Her hair does not make me feel anything. You, however, leaving your desk and interrupting my work to try and start shit makes me feel things." -anonymous

"So I started some morning office small talk, asking how my co-worker's weekend went. She goes, 'So ya know how we were talking about how unique your name is? Well over the weekend I was at the zoo and they have this new female gorilla named Imani!', and she proceeds to show me a picture of said gorilla. #microaggressionmondays" -Imani O'Saucer, Facebook

Want to be featured in similar BuzzFeed posts? Follow the BuzzFeed Community on Facebook and Twitter.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
27 Microaggression Horror Stories That'll Make You Wanna Work From Home Forever

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
"I had an office full of white women ask to look at my lips because they were reading a mag about lip fillers and wanted to see how they would turn out. I said, 'You know, when I was kid I hated my lips.

# data[].attributes.body
Video: A short explanation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
How to Respond to Microaggressions (Published 2020)

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Should you let that comment slide, or address it head on? Is it more harm than it’s worth? We can help.

# data[].attributes.body
We are never too young to learn

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
For young children, learning the power of words, personal boundaries and social dynamics is a crucial part of their development. In my first-grade classroom, students are in the thick of learning to read and write. And just as actively, they're learning how to communicate with others.

They experiment with tone, diction, intent and body language with one another and with the adults around them. It's an expected, developmentally appropriate part of learning how to coexist with others. Sometimes, as in the common cases of name-calling, teasing and excluding, that experimentation can be painful.

Addressing unkindness is part and parcel of working with young students. But not all unkindness is the same. It can be particularly detrimental when the hurtful language relates to race, gender, religion or other aspects of a child's identity. These are microaggressions: small, subtle, sometimes-unintended acts of discrimination.

Microaggressions reinforce stereotypes in surreptitious ways. They must be addressed in a way that recognizes that they're different from typical, 6-year-old unkindness and that makes the distinction clear, understandable and actionable for students.

It can be hard enough for adults-particularly adults with privileged identities-to recognize microaggressions. But it's crucial we address them. At their core, these are coded messages of disapproval that are based in identity: comments and actions that echo larger, structural bigotry, telling marginalized people they don't belong, that they are less than. Children start internalizing these messages while they are still developing their identities.

Before talking with students about microaggressions, it's essential to establish an identity-safe classroom. Students need to feel safe and supported. In my class, when we do discuss microaggressions, I remind students of conversations we've already had about representation. I remind them that, when we're reading together, we always ask, "Whose story is being told here?" I also reference the discussions we've had around more overt racism: how being called a racist may hurt, but it doesn't compare to actually experiencing racism.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Teaching First-Graders About Microaggressions: The Small Moments Add Up

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
For young children, learning the power of words, personal boundaries and social dynamics is a crucial part of their development. In my first-grade classroom, students are in the thick of learning to read and write. And just as actively, they're learning how to communicate with others.