# data[].attributes.headline
Diversity of Gender and Sexual Orientation

# data[].attributes.subject
Diversity of Gender and Sexual Orientation

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
In light of the gender and sexual orientation diversity within the human race, and in light of the stigma associated with being a sexual orientation or gender identity minority, in August 2014, APA's Council of Representatives adopted the Resolution on Gender and Sexual Orientation Diversity in Children and Adolescents in Schools. The resolution calls for K-12 public schools to be places of safety and support for all students, and offers recommendations for policies, programs, training, and practices.

Note: The following resources were not formally adopted as part of the resolution by council, but were developed by the resolution working group to support and facilitate dissemination and implementation of the resolution.

Introduction to the Resolution

The stress and stigma of being a sexual orientation or gender identity minority can increase developmental risks for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgender, questioning, queer, asexual, or intersex children and youth. In particular, still too common are concerns around bullying in schools and schools not fully addressing the educational needs of children and youth who are sexual or gender minorities, or those who are questioning their sexual and gender identities. Many sexual and gender minority children and youth experience truancy, dropping out or sometimes being pushed out of school, subtly, or explicitly.

The resolution calls for:

Promoting safe and supportive school policies for all children and youth.

Protecting the right to privacy around sex, sexual orientation, and gender identity for children and youth in schools.

Collecting data on sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.

Developing anti-bullying efforts within schools.

Developing programs to increase school engagement for sexual orientation and gender identity minority children and youth.

Increasing access to facilities and programs for youth and children based on their gender identity, not their assigned gender.

See fact sheets, best practices and other resources for implementing the resolution's recommendations.

While issues addressed in this resolution impact sexual orientation and gender identity minority children and youth in schools worldwide (e.g. stigmatization, stress, bullying, lack of support), they speak more closely to the lived experiences and needs of sexual orientation and gender identity minority children and youth living in the United States. For example, group identities and other terminology described in the resolution, and literature cited, represent the realities sexual orientation and gender identity minority children and youth encounter in the United States; they may not apply to those living in other sociocultural contexts. Therefore, this resolution is primarily intended to inform and support the school-based practice of psychologists, counselors and other mental health professionals working with sexual orientation and gender identity minority children and youth in the United States.

This resolution is aligned with APA's strategic plan - specifically, expanding psychology's role in advancing health and increasing recognition of psychology as a science (i.e., expanding the translation of psychological science into evidence-based practice and promoting the applications of psychological science to daily living). It also advances the National Association of School Psychologists' (NASP) strategic priorities and goals that relate to culturally responsive services and schools; and advocacy for children, youth, families and schools by working to improve policies that will more effectively meet the needs of the whole child.

Context for the Resolution

The current context for this resolution is one of rapid societal change. Youth and children in the context of schools are part of this phenomenon of rapid change. Youth and children are grappling with issues and questions of sexual orientation and gender identity in ways different from previous generations, and often at earlier ages. The last time that APA and NASP addressed sexual minority youth in schools was in 1993, in the joint resolution Lesbian, Gay and Bisexual Youth in the Schools. There have been significant changes in societal attitudes since then, but also a lack of improvement in some fundamental ways regarding how our institutions address the needs of sexual orientation and gender identity minority youth.

June 2013 saw the U.S. Supreme Court decide that the Defense of Marriage Act was unconstitutional, and the overturning of Proposition 8 in California, which had rescinded marriage equality for same-sex couples. Since then, state level bans across the country have largely been overturned making marriage equality for same-sex couples available to a significant majority of the population. The "don't ask, don't tell policy" prohibiting open LGBT people from serving in the U.S. military was repealed in 2010.

States are also adopting policies to protect sexual orientation and gender diverse youth in schools. For example, The California Student Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000 amended California Education Code to specifically prohibit discrimination against and harassment of students and staff in schools on the basis of sexual orientation or gender identity - adding to the protected categories of sex, ethnic group identification, race, national origin, religion, color, or mental or physical disability.

Despite advances in LGBT rights, the prevalence of bullying within school and neighborhood contexts has not declined (Patrick, Bell, Huang, Lazarakis, & Edwards, 2013), and in some communities hate crimes against sexual orientation minorities have even increased (Mustanski, 2013). There has been controversy over "reparative therapy" and sexual orientation change efforts (SOCE). APA and NASP have taken clear stands against these and other efforts to pathologize variations in sexual orientation and gender identity and expression, which infringe on the rights of LGBT individuals. Numerous other education, mental health, and medical professions have adopted similar positions about the ineffectiveness of SOCE, and raise the concern that SOCE may be harmful (APA, 2009; Just the Facts Coalition, 2008).

While this resolution is about schools, schools also have a role in the larger community, in neighborhoods and with families. Thus, the observations and recommendations contained in this resolution are relevant beyond the school walls. Schools should be safe and welcoming to all students, and a resource to the whole community in efforts to enhance the resiliency and psychological well-being of sexual orientation and gender identity minority children and youth.

Definitions and Limitations of Language

The language around gender and sexuality continues to evolve rapidly, even as the Resolution on Gender and Sexual Orientation Diversity in Children and Adolescents in Schools was being written. Words and their definitions change or become refined as our understanding of complex constructs related to sexuality and gender evolves. Using words or phrases that are most accurate, respectful and useful is an important goal in implementing this resolution.

Given how rapidly terminology changes, even the following list of terms and definitions might undergo significant change in the future. The resolution drafters therefore decided it important to explicitly and consciously articulate their current understanding of terms that appear in the resolution and in its supporting documents as follows:

Asexual refers to a person who does not experience sexual attraction or has little interest in sexual activity.

Bullying is unwanted, repetitive and aggressive behavior marked by an imbalance of power. It can take on multiple forms, including physical (e.g., hitting), verbal (e.g., name calling or making threats), relational (e.g., spreading rumors) and electronic (e.g., texting, social networking). (Rossen & Cowan, 2012).

Cisgender replaces the terms "nontransgender" or "bio man/bio woman" to refer to individuals who have a match between the gender they were assigned at birth, their bodies and their gender identity. (Schilt & Westbrook, 2009).

DSD refers to "disorders of sex development," a term that is used to discuss intersex and variations in sex development by some medical professionals and community members. See entry for Intersex .

Gender refers to the attitudes, feelings and behaviors that a given culture associates with a person's biological sex. Behavior that is compatible with cultural expectations is referred to as gender-normative; behaviors that are viewed as incompatible with these expectations constitute gender non-conformity. (APA, 2012).

Gender expression refers to an individual's presentation - including physical appearance, clothing choice and accessories - and behavior that communicates aspects of gender or gender role. Gender expression may or may not conform to a person's gender identity.

Gender diversity refers to the extent to which a person's gender identity, role or expression differs from the cultural norms prescribed for people of a particular sex. This term is becoming more popular as a way to describe people without reference to a particular cultural norm, in a manner that is more affirming and potentially less stigmatizing than gender nonconformity (Gender Spectrum, n. d.).

Gender dysphoria refers to discomfort or distress that is associated with a discrepancy between a person's gender identity and that person's sex assigned at birth - and the associated gender role and/or primary and secondary sex characteristics (Fisk, 1974; Knudson, De Cuypere, & Bockting, 2010). Only some gender-nonconforming people experience gender dysphoria at some point in their lives (Coleman, et al. 2011).

Gender identity refers to one's sense of oneself as male, female or something else (APA, 2011). When one's gender identity and biological sex are not congruent, the individual may identify along the transgender spectrum (APA, 2012; Gainor, 2000).

Gender identity and sexual orientation are different constructs. Transgender people, like disgender people, may be sexually oriented toward men, women, both sexes or neither sex, and like most people, usually experience their gender identity (who they feel themselves to be) and their sexual orientation (whom they are attracted to) as separate phenomena (Bockting & Gray, 2004; Chivers & Bailey, 2000; Coleman, Bockting, & Gooren, 1993; Docter & Fleming, 2001; Docter & Prince, 1997). Many transgender people experience a shift in their sexual attractions at some point (Daskalos, 1998; Meier, Pardo, Labuski, & Babcock, 2013), indicating that sexual orientation may be more dynamic than previously thought.

Gender non-conforming is an adjective and umbrella term to describe individuals whose gender expression, gender identity, or gender role differs from gender norms associated with their assigned birth sex. Subpopulations of the transgender and gender non-conforming community can develop specialized language to represent their experience and culture, such as the term "masculine of center" that is used in communities of color to describe a gender non-conforming identity.

Gender role refers to a pattern of appearance, personality and behavior that, in a given culture, is associated with being a boy/man/male or being a girl/woman/female. A person's gender role may or may not conform to what is expected based on a person's sex assigned at birth. Gender role may also refer to the social role one is living in (e.g., as a woman, a man or another gender), with some role characteristics conforming and others not conforming to what is associated with girls/women or boys/men in a given culture and time.

Genderqueer refers to a person whose gender identity falls outside of the gender binary (i.e., identifies with neither or both genders). Genderqueers may also use the term "gender fluid" as an identifier but typically reject the term "transgender" because it implies a change from one gender category to another.

Intersex refers to a range of conditions associated with atypical development of physical sex characteristics (APA, 2006). Intersex individuals may be born with chromosomes, genitals and/or gonads that do not fit typical female or male presentations (2013). Some examples of these conditions include ambiguous external genitals, inability of the body to respond typically to sex-related hormones and inconsistency between external genitals and internal reproductive organs (APA, 2006). Since 2006, the medical and research community has used the term disorders of sex development . This term refers to congenital conditions characterized by atypical development of chromosomal, gonadal or anatomical sex (Houk, Hughes, Ahmed, Lee, & Writing Committee for the International Intersex Consensus Conference Participants, 2006). An alternate term - differences of sex development (DSD)- has been recommended to prevent a view of these conditions as diseased or pathological (Wisemann, Udo-Koeller, Sinnecker, & Thyen, 2010). In order to be inclusive of various terminology preferences, the Resolution on Gender and Sexual Orientation Diversity in Children and Adolescents in Schools uses intersex/DSD when referring to individuals who are part of this community.

Pansexual is a term "most commonly used in the world outside academia as a sexual identity (and sexual orientation) term similar to 'bisexuality,' but more inclusive of trans people. It also shows an awareness of the implied gender binary in the term 'bisexual.'" (Elizabeth, 2013, p. 333).

Pushout refers to a student who leaves school before graduation due to the encouragement of school personnel, often to enable the school to achieve a performance goal or to lower disruption within the school, or because the school views the student as too much trouble. This term is in contrast to "drop out" to highlight the institutional influence on individual behavior (Find Youth Info, n.d.).

Queer is an umbrella term that individuals may use to describe a sexual orientation, gender identity or gender expression that does not conform to dominant societal norms. Historically, it has been considered a derogatory or pejorative term and the term may continue to be used by some individuals with negative intentions. Still, many LGBT individuals today embrace the label in a neutral or positive manner (Russell, Kosciw, Horn, & Saewyc, 2010). Some youth may adopt 'queer' as an identity term to avoid limiting themselves to the gender binaries of male and female or to the perceived restrictions imposed by lesbian, gay and bisexual sexual orientations (Rivers, 2010).

Questioning is an identity label for people exploring their sexual orientation or gender identity, and is in a state of moratorium in terms of identity formation.

Sex refers to a person's biological status and is typically categorized as male, female or intersex. There are a number of indicators of biological sex, including sex chromosomes, gonads, internal reproductive organs and external genitalia. (APA, 2012).

Sex assignment is the initial categorization of an infant as male or female.

Sexual orientation refers to the sex of those to whom one is sexually and romantically attracted. Categories of sexual orientation typically have included attraction to members of one's own sex (gay men or lesbians), attraction to members of the other sex (heterosexuals), and attraction to members of both sexes (bisexuals). Some people identify as pansexual or queer in terms of their sexual orientation, which means they define their sexual orientation outside of the gender binary of "male" and "female" only. While these categories continue to be widely used, research has suggested that sexual orientation does not always appear in such definable categories and instead occurs on a continuum (Kinsey, Pomeroy, Martin, & Gebhard, 1953; Klein, 1993; Klein, Sepekoff, & Wolff, 1985; Shively & DeCecco, 1977). In addition, some research indicates that sexual orientation is fluid for some people; this may be especially true for women (e.g., Diamond, 2007; Golden, 1987; Peplau & Garnets, 2000).

Transgender is an umbrella term that incorporates differences in gender identity wherein one's assigned biological sex doesn't match their felt identity. This umbrella term includes persons who do not feel they fit into a dichotomous sex structure through which they are identified as male or female. Individuals in this category may feel as if they are in the wrong gender, but this perception may or may not correlate with a desire for surgical or hormonal reassignment (Meier & Labuski, 2013).

References for Definitions

American Psychological Association. (2006). Answers to your questions about individuals with intersex conditions. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/intersex

American Psychological Association. (2009). Report of the task force on appropriate therapeutic responses to sexual orientation. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/pi/lgbt/resources/sexual-orientation

American Psychological Association. (2011). Answers to your questions: About transgender people, gender identity, and gender expression. Retrieved from http://www.apa.org/topics/lgbt/transgender

American Psychological Association. (2012). Guidelines for psychological practice with lesbian, gay, and bisexual clients. American Psychologist®, 67(1), 10-42.

Bockting, W. O., & Gray, N. (2004, August). Transgender identity and HIV risk: An Internet-based study. Abstract presented at the 112th Annual Convention of the American Psychological Association, Honolulu, Hawaii.

California Safety and Violence Prevention Act of 2000, Cal. Stat. §§ 200-220 (2000).

Chivers, M. L., & Bailey, J. M. (2000). Sexual orientation of female-to-male transsexuals: A 1615 comparison of homosexual and non-homosexual types. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 29(3), 259-278.

Coleman, E., Bockting, W., Botzer, M., Cohen-Kettenis, P., DeCuypere, G., Feldman, J., ... Zucker, K. (2011). Standards of Care for the Health of Transsexual, Transgender, and Gender-Nonconforming People, Version 7. International Journal of Transgenderism, 13, 165-232. doi: 10.1080/15532739.2011.700873

Coleman, E., Bockting, W. O., & Gooren, L. J. G. (1993). Homosexual and bisexual identity in sex-reassigned female-to-male transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 22(1), 37-50.

Daskalos, C. T. (1998). Changes in the sexual orientation of six heterosexual male-to-female 1671 transsexuals. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 27(6), 605-614. doi:10.1023/A:1018725201811

Diamond, L. M. (2008). Sexual fluidity: Understanding women's love and desire. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.

Docter, R. F., & Fleming, J. S. (2001). Measures of transgender behavior. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 30(3), 255-271

Docter, R. F., & Prince, V. (1997). Transvestism: A survey of 1032 cross-dressers. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 26(6), 589-605.

Elizabeth, A. (2013). Challenging the binary: sexual identity that is not duality. Journal of Bisexuality, 13(3), 329-337. doi: 10.1080/15299716.2013.813421

Find Youth Info. (n.d.). How trained service professionals and self-advocacy makes a difference for youth with mental health, substance abuse, or co-occurring issues. Retrieved from http://www.findyouthinfo.gov/youth-briefs/transition-age-youth-challenges

Fisk, N. (1974). Gender dysphoria syndrome: The conceptualization that liberalizes indications for total gender reorientation and implies a broadly based multi-dimensional rehabilitative regimen [Editorial comment]. Western Journal of Medicine, 120(5) 386-391.

Gainor, K. (2000). Including transgender issues in lesbian, gay and bisexual psychology: Implications for clinical practice and training. In B. Greene, & G. Croom (Eds.), Psychological Perspectives on Lesbian and Gay Issues, Volume 5: Education, research, and practice in lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgendered psychology: A resource manual. (pp. 131-161). Thousand Oaks, CA: SAGE Publications, Inc.

Gender Spectrum. (n. d.). Understanding gender. Retrieved from https://www.genderspectrum.org/quick-links/understanding-gender/

Golden, C. (1987). Diversity and variability in women's sexual identities. The Boston Lesbian Psychologies Collective, ed., Lesbian psychologies: explorations and challenges (pp.19-34). Urbana: University of Illinois Press.

Houk, C. P., Hughes, I.A., Ahmed, S. F., Lee, P.A., and Writing Committee for the International Intersex Consensus Conference Participants. (2006). Summary of consensus statement on intersex disorders and their management. Pediatrics, 118(2)753-757. doi: 10.1542/peds.2006-0737

Just the Facts Coalition. (2008). Just the facts about sexual orientation and youth: A primer for principals, educators, and school personnel. Retrieved from www.apa.org/pi/lgbc/publications/justthefacts.html

Kinsey, A. C., Pomeroy, W. B., Martin, C. E., & Gebhard, P. H. (1953). Sexual behavior in the human female. Oxford, England: Saunders.

Klein, F. (1993). The bisexual option (2nd ed.). New York, NY: Harrington Park.

Klein, F., Sepekoff, B., & Wolf, T. J. (1985). Sexual orientation: A multi-variable dynamic process. Journal of Homosexuality, 11(1-2), 35-49.

Knudson, G., De Cuypere, G., & Bockting, W. (2010). Process toward consensus on recommendations for revision of the DSM diagnoses of gender identity disorders by The World Professional Association for Transgender Health. International Journal of Transgenderism, 12(2), 54-59.

Meier, S. C. & Labuski, C. M. (2013) The demographics of the transgender population. In A. K. Baumle (ed.), International Handbooks of Population, International Handbook on the Demography of Sexuality, 5 (pp. 289-327). doi: 10.1007/978-94-007-5512-3_16

Meier, S. C., Pardo, S., Labuski, C. & Babcock, J. (2013). Measures of clinical health among female-to-male transgender persons as a function of sexual orientation. Archives of Sexual Behavior, 42, 463-474. doi: 10.1007/s10508-012-0052-2

Mustanski, B. (2013, June 12). Are violent hate crimes against lgbt people on the rise? The Sexual Continuum, Psychology Today. Retrieved from http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/the-sexual-continuum/201306/are-violent-hate-crimes-against-lgbt-people-the-rise

Intersex Campaign for Equality. (2013). FAQs: What is intersex and how common is it? Retrieved from http://oii-usa.org/category/faqs/

Patrick, D. L., Bell, J. F., Huang, J. Y., Lazarakis, N.C ., & Edwards, T.C. (2013). Bullying and Quality of Life in Youths Perceived as Gay, Lesbian, or Bisexual in Washington State, 2010. American Journal of Public Health, 103(7), 1255-1261. doi: 10.2105/AJPH.2012.301101

Peplau, L. A., & Garnets, L. D. (2000). A new paradigm for understanding women's sexuality and sexual orientation. Journal of Social Issues, 56(2) 330-350. doi: 10.1111/0022-4537.00169

Rivers, I. (2010). Understanding the changing nature of identity in LGBTQ youth research. Society for Research in Child Development [Commentary]. Social Policy Report, 24, 18.

Rossen, E., & Cowan, K. C. (2012). A framework for school-wide bullying prevention and safety. Communique , 41(2). Retrieved from http://www.nasponline.org/resources/bullying/bullying_brief_12.pdf

Society for Research in Child Development. (2010) Russell, S. T., Kosciw, J., Horn, S., & Saewyc, E. Safe Schools Policy for LGBTQ Students (Social Policy Report, 24(4), 1-17). Retrieved from http://www.srcd.org/sites/default/files/documents/spr_24_4_final.pdf

Schilt, K., & Westbrook, L. (2009). Doing Gender, Doing Heteronormativity: 'Gender Normals,' Transgender People, and the Social Maintenance of Heterosexuality. Gender & Society, 23(4), 440-464. doi: 10.1177/0891243209340034

Shively, M. G., & De Cecco, J. P. (1977). Components of sexual identity. Journal of Homosexuality, 3(1), 41-48.

Wiesemann, C., Ude-Koeller, S., Sinnecker, G.H.G., & Thyen, U. (2010). Ethical principles and recommendations for the medical management of differences of sex development (DSD)/intersex in children and adolescents. European Journal of Pediatrics, 169(6), 671-679.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.keywords[]
resolution on gender and sexual orientation diversity in children and adolescents in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Gender and sexual orientation diversity in children and adolescents in schools

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The working group that wrote the Resolution on Gender and Sexual Orientation Diversity in Children and Adolescents in Schools created these additional resources to support and facilitate dissemination and implementation of the policy. Together, these policy resources call for K-12 public schools to be places of safety and support for all students.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
By: Jason Rafferty MD, MPH, EdM, FAAP

There are many ways parents can promote healthy gender development in children. It helps to understand gender identity and how it forms.

What's the difference between gender and sex?

Being a boy or a girl, for most children, is something that feels very natural. At birth, babies are assigned male or female based on physical characteristics. This refers to the or "assigned gender" of the child.

Meanwhile, "gender identity" refers to an internal sense people have of who they are that comes from an interaction of biological traits, developmental influences and environmental conditions. This may be male, female, somewhere in between, a combination of both or neither.

Self-recognition of gender identity develops over time, much the same way a child's physical body does. Most children's asserted gender identity aligns with their assigned gender (sex). However, for some children, the match between their assigned gender and gender identity is not so clear.

How does gender identity develop in children?

Gender identity typically develops in stages:

Around age two: Children become conscious of the physical differences between boys and girls.

Before their third birthday: Most children can easily label themselves as either a boy or a girl.

By age four: Most children have a stable sense of their gender identity.

During this same time of life, children learn gender role behavior-that is, doing "things that boys do" or"things that girls do." However, cross-gender preferences and play are a normal part of gender development and exploration regardless of their future gender identity

The point is that all children tend to develop a clearer view of themselves and their gender over time. At any point, research suggests that children who assert a gender-diverse identity know their gender as clearly and consistently as their developmentally matched peers and benefit from the same level of support, love and social acceptance.

What parents can do:

All children need the opportunity to explore different gender roles and different styles of play. Parents can make sure their young child's environment reflects diversity in gender roles and encourages opportunities for everyone. Some ideas would be to offer:

Children's books or puzzles showing men and women in non-stereotypical and diverse gender roles (stay-at-home dads, working moms, male nurses and female police officers, for example).

A wide range of toys for your child to choose from, including baby dolls, toy vehicles, action figures, blocks, etc.

By age 6, most children spend most of their playtime with members of their own sex. They may also gravitate towards sports and other activities that are associated with their gender. It is important to allow children to make choices regarding friend groups, sports and other activities they get involved in. It is also a good idea to check in with your child to learn about their preferences and to make sure they feel included without teasing or bullying.

How do children typically express their gender identity?

In addition to their choices of toys, games, and sports, children typically express their gender identity in the following ways:

Clothing or hairstyle

Preferred name or nickname

Social behavior that reflects varying degrees of aggression, dominance, dependency and gentleness.

Manner and style of behavior and physical gestures and other nonverbal actions identified as masculine or feminine.

Social relationships, including the gender of friends, and the people they decide to imitate.

Gender expression & gender identity

A child's gender-specific behavior (gender expression) at any time seems to be influenced by exposure to stereotypes and their identification with the people in their lives. However, the internal sense of being a girl, boy, in between or something else (gender identity) cannot be changed.

How have gender stereotypes changed over time?

Our expectations of "what girls do" and"what boys do" have changed. Many female athletes excel at their sports. Girls increasingly pursue subjects traditionally thought of as"masculine." There are many famous male chefs, artists, and musicians―fields traditionally thought of as"feminine."

Over time, society has recognized that stereotypes of "masculine" and"feminine" activities and behaviors are inaccurate and limiting to a child's development. Such interests also do not determine or influence one's gender identity. Plus, our ability to predict who a child is based on early preferences is not very accurate-and may be harmful if it leads to shame or attempts to suppress their skills, talents and genuine self.

Still, when a child's interests and abilities are different from what society expects, they may face discrimination and bullying. It is natural for parents to have gender-based expectations for their children and to want to protect them from criticism and exclusion. Instead of pushing children to conform to these pressures and to limit themselves, parents can play an important role in advocating for safe spaces where their children can feel comfortable and good about themselves.

If your child doesn't excel in sports or even have an interest in them, for example, there will still be many other opportunities and areas in which they can thrive. Regardless of gender identity, each child has their own strengths that may not always conform to society's or your own expectations, but they will still be a source of current and future success.

Gender development is a normal process for all children. Some children will exhibit variations―similar to all areas of human health and behavior. However, all children need support, love and care from family, school and society, which fosters growth into happy and healthy adults.

More information

About Dr. Rafferty

Jason Rafferty, MD, MPH, EdM, FAAP, is pediatrician and child psychiatrist at Thundermist Health Centers, a Patient-Centered Medical Home in Rhode Island. He specializes in adolescent substance use disorders and gender and sexual development, and also practices in related specialty clinics at Hasbro Children's Hospital and Emma Pendleton Bradley Hospital. Dr. Rafferty is an advocate in his local community and on a national level through work with the American Academy of Pediatrics on issues including the emotional health of young men, access to care for LGBTQ youth, and prevention of childhood homelessness.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
There are many ways parents can promote healthy gender development in children. It helps to understand gender identity and how it forms.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Editor's Note: What follows is a chapter from Rebalancing: Children First, a new report from the AEI-Brookings Working Group on Childhood in the United States.

Our working group agrees that the research evidence indicates that, on average, children who have (a) two parents who are committed to one another, (b) a stable home life, (c) more economic resources, and (d) the advantage of being intended or welcomed by their parents are more likely to flourish. In general, we believe that evidence suggests that marriage is the best path to the favorable outcomes highlighted above. Marriage is of course not the only path that allows children to succeed; many children raised by single parents and cohabiting parents thrive in life. Even so, in the United States marriage continues to be the institution most likely to combine the four benefits outlined above for the sake of children.

Marriage matters to children. Having married parents typically means that children live in families with more resources, including more time with their parents, and with greater stability. While these factors in themselves point to a range of improved outcomes for children, the benefits of growing up in a family with married parents is more than a sum of these parts. Yet a long, steady decline in marriage rates over the past five decades means that more children are growing up in single-parent families. Today about one in four children ages 0-12 does not have married parents. While the decline in marriage has occurred across all demographics, more than one in three children whose mother has an education level of less than a college degree does not have married parents. ¹

Of course, marriage does not guarantee an environment in which children get what they most need-a secure and stable environment with engaged and nurturing caregivers. But, in our review of the evidence, the working group concludes that marriage offers the most reliable way to promote these ends. We underline that the differences in outcomes we have been discussing are primarily the rates at which children experience adversities; most children from single, step, and cohabiting families do well or average on most outcomes (D'Onofrio and Emery 2019; Eggebeen and Licher 1991; Hetherington and Kelly 2002). In other words, many children from nonintact families thrive.

There are roles for both policy and civil society in promoting and supporting marriage, including targeted reductions of marriage tax penalties, improved economic opportunities that will in turn promote marriage, and communication of clear public messages about the importance of marriage for children.

Family Structure and Stability in the U.S. Context

Over the past half century, marriage has become less likely to anchor the lives of American families, leaving more and more children to experience family instability and single parenthood. As shown in figure 2.1, the percentage of children (ages 12 and under) living in households with married parents (with spouse present) declined from 83 percent in the mid-1970s to 71 percent in 2019. This decline in children living with two parents was accompanied by a steady increase in the percentage of children living with only their mother. This trend was entirely driven by a rise in the share of children living with never-married mothers, which increased from 3 percent in 1976 to 18 percent in 2019. The share of children living with divorced mothers held relatively steady over this period at 6 percent (Cherlin 2009; Cohen 2019).

Changes in family life have not affected all children equally. Children with less-educated parents and Black and Hispanic children have been disproportionately affected. Over the past 40 years nonmarital childbearing rose the most for families in these two groups (Cherlin 2009; Wilcox and Marquardt 2010). As shown in figure 2.1, two-thirds of children ages 12 and younger with mothers with less than a college degree had married parents in 2019, down from more than 80 percent in 1976. The decline in marriage has been much less steep for college-educated mothers, dropping from 93 percent in 1976 to about 90 percent in 2019. Among mothers with a college degree, 14 percent of the decline in marriage rates is explained by an increase in divorce, 75 percent is explained by an increase in never-married mothers, and the remainder is explained by an increase in the small share of mothers that are separated or widowed.

Today, when it comes to both socioeconomic status and race, American family life is deeply unequal (figure 2.2). Much of the difference across racial and ethnic groups likely reflects group differences in economic conditions, including differences in wages and employment opportunities (Sawhill 2013), differences in wealth including home ownership rates (Schneider 2011), as well as differences in educational attainment (figure 2.1). An increasing share of children across all groups lived with a never-married mother in 2018. In 2018 more Black children lived with never-married mothers than with married parents. Fewer than two in five Black children lived with married parents in 2018, compared with two in three Hispanic children and 82 percent of white children. After rising for most groups between 1976 and 2000, the proportion of children living with separated, divorced, or widowed parents in 2019 is about the same as it was in 1976: 6 percent of Hispanic children and 6 percent of white children, and 8 percent of Black children ages 12 and under.

Since the Great Recession, declines in marriage rates have halted-at least from the perspective of children. Divorce has fallen by more than 20 percent since the onset of the Great Recession, nearly returning to 1970 levels (Payne 2018). The share of children living with married parents has edged up by a percentage point since 2011, driven by a decline in the share living with divorced parents; in addition, nonmarital childbearing declined by a percentage point since 2009 (Centers for Disease Control and Prevention [CDC] 2019). Especially striking about this modest reversal is that it has been largest for Black and Hispanic children. In other words, in recent years the share of children in married-parent families is rising faster for Black and Hispanic children than it is for white children, though the gaps in levels remain large. So even though stark inequalities still exist, American families have become somewhat less unequal in the past decade.

Evidence That Family Structure and Stability Matter for Children

The family divide in America has many roots, but it has been largely driven by changes in our economy and in our culture that have made marriage less attainable and less required for poor and working-class Americans (Cherlin 2009; Ellwood and Jencks 2004; Wilcox, Wolfinger, and Stokes 2015; Wilson 1987). Nevertheless, this divide matters because children are, on average, more likely to thrive when they are raised in a stable, two-parent home. Compared to cohabitation, for instance, marriage in the United States is markedly more likely to bundle commitment, nonviolence, and stability (Kenney and McLanahan 2006; Musick and Michelmore 2018; Nock 1998; Wilcox and DeRose 2017). Figure 2.3, which displays the likelihood that children will see their parents break up before age 12 by parental education and marital status, shows a big gap between cohabiting and married parents (Wilcox and DeRose 2017). Other research indicates that children born to cohabiting couples who never marry are almost twice as likely to see their parents break up, compared to children whose parents are married, even after controlling for a range of confounding factors, such as parental education, race, and income (Musick and Michelmore 2018).

There are many reasons why children raised by married parents are more likely to flourish compared to children raised in single-parent families. For example, children in married-parent families have access to higher levels of income and assets, more involvement by fathers, better physical and mental health among both parents, more family stability, and many other factors (Ribar 2015). Most of these individual factors have been shown to have a positive impact on children's well-being. David Ribar's recent study of the impacts of marriage on children investigated the effects of these specific mechanisms. Even after accounting for these factors that are correlated with marriage, he finds that children with married parents have better outcomes. This means that, even given equal levels of parental attention, income, family stability, and other factors, children in married-parent families tend to end up better off than those living in other types of family arrangements. The advantages of being raised in a married-parent family appear to be more than the sum of the inputs. As Ribar concludes, "The advantages of marriage for children's wellbeing are likely to be hard to replicate through policy interventions other than those that bolster marriage itself" (Ribar 2015, 11).

We will not attempt to summarize the voluminous literature on family structure and child well-being, but outcomes related to education, economic security, and health suggest links between stable families and children's well-being. For example, children raised in stable, married-parent families are more likely to excel in school, and generally earn higher grade point averages (Harker 2007). The effects of family structure are even stronger for social and behavioral outcomes related to schooling, such as school suspensions, whether a school contacts parents about a child's behavior, and whether a child drops out of high school (Autor et al. 2016; Kearney and Levine 2017; McLanahan and Sandefur 1994). Children who live in homes with married parents are more likely to attend and graduate from college (Kearney and Levine 2017; Lerman and Wilcox 2014). Research from Melissa Kearney and Phillip Levine indicates that the effects of marriage on high school and college completion are larger for children from less-educated homes than for children from homes with college-educated parents (Kearney and Levine 2017). In other words, children are more likely to acquire the human capital they need to later flourish in adulthood when they are raised in stable, married-parent families. We note that the effects of family structure vary by outcome, race, and financial status. Some of the effects of family structure are modest, such as on academic test scores; other effects of family structure seem larger, such as high school graduation rates (McLanahan, Tach, and Schneider 2013).

Because families that have two parents are more likely to have two earners, children in stable, married-parent families enjoy markedly higher income and lower risks of poverty and material deprivation (Lerman, Price, and Wilcox 2017). Figure 2.4 shows that children under age 12 living in single-parent homes are much more likely to be in poverty than children in married-parent families. Child poverty would be markedly reduced if the marriage rate was the same as it was in 1970 (Lerman 1996; Thomas and Sawhill 2005).

Obviously, much of the association between family structure and family income is about selection: married parents tend to be better educated and to be employed in better-paying jobs, even before they marry (Cherlin 2018). But part of the employment effect seems to be causal, as well. That is, marriage increases the odds that families have access to two earners, reduces the odds that households go through costly family transitions such as a divorce, engenders more support from kin, and fosters habits of financial prudence, including more savings (Eggebeen 2005; Lerman 2002).

The links between family structure and children's economic well-being also extend over the life course. A recent study by Richard Reeves and Chris Pulliam found that upward economic mobility is much higher for the children of married parents. Among those who were in the bottom income quintile as children, four out of five who were raised by married parents throughout their childhood rose out of the bottom quintile when they reached adulthood. In contrast, those raised by a single parent throughout childhood had a 50 percent chance of remaining in the bottom income quintile (Reeves and Pulliam 2020). Another study, this one by Raj Chetty and coauthors, found sharp differences in upward mobility across geographic areas (Chetty et al. 2014); the strongest single predictor of rates of upward mobility in a particular area was the share of single-parent families. This factor was much more predictive than other measures tied to economic well-being, such as parents' education levels, income, or race. To be sure, these studies report correlations and do not necessarily reflect the causal impact of marriage. But study after study shows a strong correlation between marriage and a wide array of positive outcomes, and also shows that the benefits of marriage are larger than would be predicted by economic factors alone.

Furthermore, regarding race, family structure can have a larger effect on some outcomes for white children than for Black children (Dunifon and Kowaleski-Jones 2002; Manning and Brown 2006). This differential impact across races and ethnicities may reflect greater support from kin or community organizations, such as churches, for Black and Hispanic children when they experience adversity related to family instability (Brown 2010; Putnam 2015). On the other hand, Black children are more likely to face other challenges, such as poverty, that compound disadvantages and increase the relative impact of family instability for them (Iceland 2019).

We also acknowledge that the quality of family life is crucial for the well-being of children, and not just the structure and stability of their family lives. Children do better when they receive high levels of affection, attention, and consistent discipline from their parents (Baumrind 2012). By contrast, children exposed to authoritarian and abusive parenting, or to high levels of conflict between their parents, are more likely to suffer, regardless of their family structure (Morrison and Coiro 1999). Indeed, the evidence suggests that parental separation is better for children in cases where high levels of conflict characterize a marriage (Amato and Booth 2000; Jekielek 1998). On the other hand, divorces involving children when there are low levels of conflict-perhaps one parent is depressed, the parents have grown apart, or one of the parents has had an affair-are more likely to make children worse off (Amato and Booth 2000).

Policy Priorities

After decades of decline, the share of children today being raised by married parents has stabilized and recently increased slightly. That's the good news. The bad news is that a large share of children do not have married parents-especially those from lower-income backgrounds and Black and Hispanic children. To bridge this divide and to strengthen family environments for all children, we propose the following public policy and civic measures to strengthen and stabilize marriage and family life in the United States.
Reduce Marriage Penalties in Means-Tested Programs
Currently, means-tested programs such as Medicaid, the Earned Income Tax Credit (EITC), and the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) penalize low-income couples who choose to marry (Carasso and Steuerle 2005) including working-class Americans, with one study showing that more than 70 percent of American families with young children and incomes in the second and third income quintiles face marriage penalties related to Medicaid, cash welfare, or SNAP receipt (Wilcox, Gersten, and Regier 2020; Wilcox, Price, and Rachidi 2016). These penalties can reduce the odds that lower-income couples will marry; one survey found that almost one-third of Americans ages 18 to 60 report they personally know someone who has not married for fear of losing means-tested benefits (Wilcox, Gersten, and Regier 2020; Wilcox, Price, and Rachidi 2016).

We recommend that Congress consider minimizing marriage penalties by (a) increasing thresholds for means-tested programs for married-parent families, especially those with young children; (b) experimenting with waivers that would allow state and local governments to try innovative approaches to reducing marriage penalties; or (c) passing a secondary earner deduction for low- to moderate-income families that would ease the financial impact of such penalties for two-earner families (Kearney and Turner 2013).
Strengthen Career and Technical Education and Apprenticeships
One reason marriage is fragile in many poor and working-class communities is that job stability and income are inadequate, especially for workers without a college degree. We acknowledge that better jobs and greater income are not a silver bullet. New research finds, for example, that better-paying jobs associated with fracking did not boost the share of children being raised in married-parent families (Kearney and Wilson 2018). But insofar as stable, decent-paying jobs remain a key ingredient for young adults considering marriage, steps should be taken to scale up vocational education and apprenticeship programs (Cass 2018; Lerman 2014; Sawhill 2018). We endorse recent initiatives to increase apprenticeships and shorter training programs. Congress should do more to expand access to apprenticeships and career and technical education and to support students in the completion of their degrees.
Encourage Young Adults to be Prepared before Having Children
Social marketing and relationship education on behalf of marriage could also prove helpful. Campaigns against smoking and teenage pregnancy have taught us that sustained efforts to change behavior can work. We would like to see a civic campaign organized around what Brookings Institution scholars Ron Haskins and Isabel Sawhill have called the success sequence, in which young adults are encouraged to pursue education, work, marriage, and parenthood, in that order (Haskins and Sawhill 2009; see also Wilcox and Wang 2017). Today, 97 percent of young adults who follow this sequence are not poor in midlife (Wilcox and Wang 2017). While the sequence has not been proven to exercise a casual role in adults' economic lives, an extensive body of research indicates that each step-that is, education, work, and marriage-is associated with better economic outcomes for families with children (Lerman and Wilcox 2014; Wang and Wilcox 2020).

A campaign organized around this sequence-with hopefully widespread support from educational, civic, media, pop cultural, and religious institutions-might meet with the same level of success as the recent campaign to prevent teen pregnancy, a campaign that helped drive down the teen pregnancy rate by more than 65 percent since the 1990s (CDC 2015, 2016, 2017; Kearney and Levine 2014). All aspects of society should encourage young adults to plan and be mentally, financially, and relationally prepared for parenthood before starting a family.

1. It is convention to refer to the characteristics of the mother when describing the attributes of parents. These analyses would not meaningfully differ if we were to refer to fathers.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Children First: Why Family Structure and Stability Matter for Children

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Our working group agrees that the research evidence indicates that, on average, children who have (a) two parents who are committed to one another, (b) a stable home life, (c) more economic resources, and (d) the advantage of being intended or welcomed by their parents are more likely to flourish.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Education and Socioeconomic Status Factsheet

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
The impact of socioeconomic status on educational outcomes and reducing slow academic skills development, low literacy, chronic stress and increased dropout rates.

# data[].attributes.body
There are several factors that impact the personal growth and development of children and adolescents. Among them include socioeconomic status, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity and expression, and familial stability. Each have unique outcomes on development, including but not limited to: the formation of identity and personality; development of social skills, morals and ethics, and cognitive abilities; and changes in mental and physical health and well-being.

# data[].attributes.body
Implicit bias is defined as a belief, attitude, or feeling that unconsciously affects one's understanding, actions, or decisions.

# data[].attributes.body
Unfair treatment in hiring decisions, law enforcement, or education because of someone's ethnicity or cultural background

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.readable_text
Implicit or Unconscious Bias

By Charlotte Ruhl, published July 01, 2020

Take-home Messages

Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that can manifest in the criminal justice system, workplace, school setting, and in the healthcare system.

Implicit bias is also known as unconscious bias or implicit social cognition.

There are many different examples of implicit biases, ranging from categories of race, gender, and sexuality.

These biases often arise as a result of trying to find patterns and navigate the overwhelming stimuli in this very complicated world. Culture, media, and upbringing can also contribute to the development of such biases

Removing these biases is a challenge, especially because we often don't even know they exist, but research reveals potential interventions and provides hope that levels of implicit biases in the United States are decreasing.

The term implicit bias was first coined back in 1995 by psychologists Mahzarin Banaji and Anthony Greenwald, where they argued that social behavior is largely influenced by unconscious associations and judgments (Greenwald & Banaji, 1995).

Specifically, implicit bias refers to attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious way, making them difficult to control.

Since the mid-90s, psychologists have extensively researched implicit biases, revealing that, without even knowing it, we all possess our own implicit biases.

System 1 and System 2 Thinking

Kahneman (2011) distinguishes between two types of thinking: system 1 and system 2.

System 1 is the brain's fast, emotional, unconscious thinking mode. This type of thinking requires little effort, but it is often error prone. Most everyday activities (like driving, talking, cleaning, etc.) make heavy use of the type 1 system.

The type 2 system is slow, logical, effortful, conscious thought, where reason dominates.

Implicit Bias vs. Explicit Bias

It is also possible that your implicit and explicit biases are different from your neighbor, friend, or even your family member. There are many factors that can control how such biases are developed.

What Are the Implications of Unconscious Bias?

Implicit biases become evident in many different domains of society. On an interpersonal level, they can manifest in simply daily interactions. This occurs when certain actions (or microaggressions) make others feel uncomfortable or aware of the specific prejudices you may hold against them.

Racial Stereotypes

Unconscious racial stereotypes are a major example of implicit bias. In other words, having an automatic preference for one race over another without even being aware of this bias.

This bias can manifest in small interpersonal interactions and has broader implications in the legal system and many other important sectors of society.

Examples may include holding an implicit stereotype that associates Black individuals as violent, and as a result, you may cross the street at night when you see a Black man walking in your direction, without even realizing why you are crossing the street.

The action taken here is an example of a microaggression. A microaggression is a subtle, automatic, and often nonverbal, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative prejudicial slights and insults toward any group (Pierce, 1970). Here, crossing the street communicates an implicit prejudice, even though you might not even be aware.

Another example of an implicit racial bias is if a Latino student is complimented by a teacher for speaking perfect English, but he is actually a native English speaker. Here, the teacher assumed that simply because he is Latino that English would not be his first language.

Gender Stereotypes

Gender biases are another common form of implicit bias. Gender biases are the ways in which we judge men and women based on traditional feminine and masculine assigned traits.

For example, a greater assignment of fame to male than female names (Banaji & Greenwald, 1995) reveals a subconscious bias that holds men at a higher level than their female counterpart. Whether you voice the opinion that men are more famous than women is independent of this implicit gender bias.

Another common implicit gender bias regards women in STEM (science, technology, engineering, and mathematics). In the school setting, girls are more likely to be associated with language over math, whereas males are more likely to be associated with math over language (Steffens & Jelenec, 2011), revealing clear gender-related implicit biases that can ultimately go so far as to dictate future career paths.

Even if you outwardly say men and women are equally good at math, it is possible you subconsciously associate math more strongly with men without even being aware of this association.

Health Care

Healthcare is another setting where implicit biases are very present. Racial and ethnic minorities and women are subject to less accurate diagnoses, curtailed treatment options, less pain management, and worse clinical outcomes (Chapman, Kaatz, & Carnes, 2013).

Additionally, Black children are often not treated as children at all, or not given the same compassion or level of care that is provided for White children (Johnson et al., 2017).

It becomes very evident that implicit biases infiltrate the most common sectors of society, making it all the more important to begin to question how we can work to remove these biases.

LGBTQ+ Community Bias

Similar to implicit racial and gender biases, individuals may hold implicit biases against members of the LGBTQ+ community. Again, that does not necessarily mean that these opinions are voiced outwardly or even consciously recognized by the beholder for that matter.

Rather, these biases are unconscious. A really simple example could be asking a female friend is she has a boyfriend, assuming her sexuality and that heterosexuality is the norm or default.

Instead, in this specific situation, you could just ask your friend if she is seeing someone. There are several other forms of implicit biases that fall into categories ranging from weight to ethnicity to ability that come into play in our everyday lives.

Legal System

Both law enforcement and the legal system shed light on implicit biases. An example of implicit biases functioning in law enforcement is the shooter bias - the tendency among the police to shoot Black civilians more often than White civilians, even when they are unarmed (Mekawi, & Bresin, 2015).

This bias has been repeatedly tested in the laboratory setting, revealing an implicit bias against Black individuals. Blacks are also arrested at disproportionally high rates, given harsher sentences, and Black juveniles are tried as adults more often than their White peers.

Black boys are also seen as less childlike, less innocent, more culpable, more responsible for their actions, and as being more appropriate targets for police violence (Goff, 2014).

Together, these unconscious stereotypes, which are not rooted in truth, form an array of implicit biases that are extremely dangerous and utterly unjust.

Work

Implicit biases are also visible in the workplace. One experiment that tracked the success of White and Black job applicants found that stereotypically White received 50% more callbacks than the stereotypically Black names, regardless of the industry or occupation (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004).

This reveals another form of implicit bias: the hiring bias - Anglicized‐named applicants receiving more favorable pre‐interview impressions than other ethnic‐named applicants (Watson, Appiah, & Thornton, 2011).

Causes of Implicit Bias

We're susceptible to bias because of these tendencies:

We tend to seek out patterns

A key reason we develop such biases is that our brains have a natural tendency to look for patterns and associations in order to make sense of a very complicated world.

Research shows that even before kindergarten, children already use their group membership (e.g., racial group, gender group, age group, etc.) to guide inferences about the psychological and behavioral traits.

At such a young age, they have already begun to seek out patterns and recognize what distinguishes them from other groups (Baron, Dunham, Banaji, & Carey, 2014).

And not only do children recognize what sets them apart from other groups, they believe "what is similar to me is good, and what is different from me is bad" (Cameron, Alvarez, Ruble, & Fuligni, 2001).

Children aren't just noticing how similar or dissimilar they are to others, but dissimilar people are actively disliked (Aboud, 1988).

Recognizing what sets you apart from others, and then forming negative opinions about those outgroups (a social group with which an individual does not identify) contributes to the development of implicit biases.

We like to take shortcuts

Another explanation is that the development of these biases is a result of the brain's tendency to try to simplify the world.

Mental shortcuts make it faster and easier for the brain to sort through all of the overwhelming data and stimuli we are met with every second of the day. And we take mental shortcuts all the time. Rules of thumb, educated guesses, and using "common sense" are all forms of mental shortcuts.

Implicit bias is a result of taking one of these cognitive shortcuts inaccurately (Rynders, 2019). As a result, we incorrectly rely on these unconscious stereotypes to provide guidance in a very complex world.

And especially when we are under high levels of stress we are more likely to rely on these biases than to examine all of the relevant, surrounding information (Wigboldus, Sherman, Franzese, & Knippenberg, 2004).

Social and Cultural influences

Influences from media, culture, and your individual upbringing can also contribute to the rise of implicit associations that people form about the members of social outgroups. Media has become increasingly accessible, and while that has many benefits, it can also lead to implicit biases.

The way TV portrays individuals, or the language journal articles use, can ingrain specific biases in our mind.

For example, they can lead us to associate Black people as criminals or females as nurses or teachers. The way you are raised can also play a huge role. One research study found that parental racial attitudes can influence children's implicit prejudice (Sinclair, Dunn, & Lowery, 2005).

And parents are not the only figures who can influence such attitudes. Siblings, the school setting, and the culture in which you grow up can also play a role in shaping your explicit beliefs and implicit biases.

Implicit Attitude Test (IAT)

What sets implicit biases apart from other forms of biases is the fact that they are subconscious - we don't know if we have them.

However, researchers have developed a tool, called the Implicit Association Test (IAT) that can help reveal such biases.

The IAT requires participants to categorize negative and positive words together with either images or words (Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998). Tests are taken online and must be performed as quickly as possible, the faster you categorize certain words or faces of a category, the stronger the bias you hold about that category.

For example, the Race IAT requires participants to categorizing White faces and Black faces and negative and positive words. The relative speed of association of black faces with negative words is used as an indication of the level of anti-black bias.

Professor Brian Nosek and colleagues tested more than 700,000 subjects and found that more than 70% of White subjects more easily associated White faces with positive words and Black faces with negative words, concluding that this was evidence of implicit racial bias (Nosek, Greenwald, & Banaji, 2007).

Outside of lab testing, it is very difficult to know if we do, in fact, possess these biases. The fact that they are so hard to detect is in the very nature of this form of bias, making them very dangerous in various real world settings.

How to Reduce Implicit Bias

Because of the harmful nature of implicit biases, it is critical to examine how we can begin to remove them.

Meditation

Practicing mindfulness is one potential way, as it serves to reduce the stress and cognitive load that otherwise leads to relying on such biases. A 2016 study found that brief mediation decreased unconscious bias against black people and elderly people (Lueke & Gibson, 2016), providing initial insight into the usefulness of this approach and paving the way for future research on this intervention.

Adjust your perspective

Another method is perspective taking - looking beyond your own point of view, so that you can consider how someone else may think or feel about something.

Researcher Belinda Gutierrez implemented a videogame called "Fair Play" in which players assume the role of a Black graduate student named Jamal Davis. As Jamal, players experience subtle race bias while completing "quests" to obtain a science degree.

Gutierrez hypothesized that participants who were randomly assigned to play the game would have greater empathy for Jamal and lower implicit race bias than participants randomized to read narrative text (not perspective taking) describing Jamal's experience (Gutierrez, 2014), and her hypothesis was supported, illustrating the benefits of perspective taking in increasing empathy towards outgroup members.

Training

Specific implicit bias training has been incorporated in different educational and law enforcement settings. Research has found that diversity training to overcome biases against women in STEM improved with men (Jackson, Hillard, & Schneider, 2014).

Training programs designed to target and help overcome implicit biases may also be beneficial with police officers (Plant & Peruche, 2005), but there is not enough conclusive evidence to completely support this claim. One pitfall of such training is a potential rebound effect.

By actively trying to inhibit stereotyping actually results in the bias eventually increasing more so than if it had not been initially suppressed in the first place (Macrae, Bodenhausen, Milne, & Jetten, 1994). This is very similar to the white bear problem that is discussed in many psychology curricula.

This concept refers to the psychological process whereby deliberate attempts to suppress certain thoughts make them more likely to surface (Wegner & Schneider, 2003).

Education

Education is crucial. Understanding what implicit biases are, how they can arise, how, and how to recognize them in yourself and others are all incredibly important in working towards overcoming such biases.

Learning about other cultures or outgroups and what language and behaviors may come off as offensive are critical as well. Education is a powerful tool that can extend beyond the classroom, through books, media, and conversations. On the bright side, implicit biases in the United States have been improving.

From 2007 to 2016, implicit biases have changed towards neutrality for sexual orientation, race, and skin-tone attitudes (Charlesworth & Banaji, 2019), demonstrating that it is possible to overcome these biases.

Books for further reading

As mentioned, education is extremely important. Here are a few places to get starting in learning more about implicit biases:

1. Biased: Uncovering the Hidden Prejudice That Shapes What We See Think and Do by Jennifer Eberhardt

2. Blindspot by Anthony Greenwald and Mahzarin Banaji

3. Implicit Racial Bias Across the Law by Justin Levinson and Robert Smith

About the Author

Charlotte Ruhl is a member of the Class of 2022 at Harvard University. She studies Psychology with a minor in African American Studies. On campus, Charlotte works at an implicit social cognition research lab, is an editor for the undergraduate law review, and plays softball.

"implicit bias"

"implicit gender bias"

"unconscious bias"

"implicit prejudices"

"hidden bias"

"implicit racial bias"

"cognitive bias"

"Implicit Association Test" or IAT

"implicit association"

"implicit social cognition"

APA Style References

Aboud, F. E. (1988). Children and prejudice. B. Blackwell.

Banaji, M. R., & Greenwald, A. G. (1995). Implicit gender stereotyping in judgments of fame. Journal of personality and social psychology, 68(2), 181.

Baron, A. S., Dunham, Y., Banaji, M., & Carey, S. (2014). Constraints on the acquisition of social category concepts. Journal of Cognition and Development, 15(2), 238-268.

Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American economic review, 94(4), 991-1013.

Cameron, J. A., Alvarez, J. M., Ruble, D. N., & Fuligni, A. J. (2001). Children's lay theories about ingroups and outgroups: Reconceptualizing research on prejudice. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 5(2), 118-128.

Chapman, E. N., Kaatz, A., & Carnes, M. (2013). Physicians and implicit bias: how doctors may unwittingly perpetuate health care disparities. Journal of general internal medicine, 28(11), 1504-1510.

Charlesworth, T. E., & Banaji, M. R. (2019). Patterns of implicit and explicit attitudes: I. Long-term change and stability from 2007 to 2016. Psychological science, 30(2), 174-192.

Goff, P. A., Jackson, M. C., Di Leone, B. A. L., Culotta, C. M., & DiTomasso, N. A. (2014). The essence of innocence: consequences of dehumanizing Black children. Journal of personality and socialpsychology,106(4), 526.

Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological review, 102(1), 4.

Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J ournal of personality and social psychology, 74(6), 1464.

Greenwald, A. G., & Krieger, L. H. (2006). Implicit bias: Scientific foundations. California Law Review, 94(4), 945-967.

Gutierrez, B., Kaatz, A., Chu, S., Ramirez, D., Samson-Samuel, C., & Carnes, M. (2014). "Fair Play": a videogame designed to address implicit race bias through active perspective taking. Games for health journal, 3(6), 371-378.

Jackson, S. M., Hillard, A. L., & Schneider, T. R. (2014). Using implicit bias training to improve attitudes toward women in STEM. Social Psychology of Education, 17(3), 419-438.

Johnson, T. J., Winger, D. G., Hickey, R. W., Switzer, G. E., Miller, E., Nguyen, M. B., ... & Hausmann, L. R. (2017). Comparison of physician implicit racial bias toward adults versus children. Academic pediatrics, 17(2), 120-126.

Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. Macmillan.

Lueke, A., & Gibson, B. (2016). Brief mindfulness meditation reduces discrimination. Psychology of Consciousness: Theory, Research, and Practice, 3(1), 34.

Macrae, C. N., Bodenhausen, G. V., Milne, A. B., & Jetten, J. (1994). Out of mind but back in sight: Stereotypes on the rebound. Journal of personality and social psychology, 67(5), 808.

Mekawi, Y., & Bresin, K. (2015). Is the evidence from racial bias shooting task studies a smoking gun? Results from a meta-analysis. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 61, 120-130.

Nosek, B. A., Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (2007). The Implicit Association Test at age 7: A methodological and conceptual review. Automatic processes in social thinking and behavior, 4, 265-292.

Pierce, C. (1970). Offensive mechanisms. The black seventies, 265-282.

Plant, E. A., & Peruche, B. M. (2005). The consequences of race for police officers' responses to criminal suspects. Psychological Science, 16(3), 180-183.

Rynders, D. (2019). Battling Implicit Bias in the IDEA to Advocate for African American Students with Disabilities. Touro L. Rev., 35, 461.

Sinclair, S., Dunn, E., & Lowery, B. (2005). The relationship between parental racial attitudes and children's implicit prejudice. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 41(3), 283-289.

Steffens, M. C., & Jelenec, P. (2011). Separating implicit gender stereotypes regarding math and language: Implicit ability stereotypes are self-serving for boys and men, but not for girls and women. Sex Roles, 64(5-6), 324-335.

Watson, S., Appiah, O., & Thornton, C. G. (2011). The effect of name on pre‐interview impressions and occupational stereotypes: the case of black sales job applicants. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 41(10), 2405-2420.

Wegner, D. M., & Schneider, D. J. (2003). The white bear story. Psychological Inquiry, 14(3-4), 326-329.

Wigboldus, D. H., Sherman, J. W., Franzese, H. L., & Knippenberg, A. V. (2004). Capacity and comprehension: Spontaneous stereotyping under cognitive load. Social Cognition, 22(3), 292-309.

report this ad

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Implicit biases are unconscious attitudes and stereotypes that can manifest in the criminal justice system, workplace, school setting, and in the healthcare system. Specifically, implicit bias refers to attitudes or stereotypes that affect our understanding, actions, and decisions in an unconscious way, making them difficult to control.

# data[].attributes.body
Cultural competence is defined as the ability to acknowledge, appreciate, and interact with those of cultures or belief systems different from one's own.

# data[].attributes.body
Workplace diversity programs, cultural immersion in educational curriculums, community services focused on equitable access to care for people of all cultural backgrounds

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Researchers study scientific approaches to treat people of diverse cultures.

# data[].attributes.headline
Implicit Bias in Education: Kirwan Institute | Ohio State University

# data[].attributes.subject
Implicit Bias in Education: Kirwan Institute | Ohio State University

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
State of the Science: Implicit Bias in Education 2018-2020 | Kirwan Institute

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Over the past 10 years, the Kirwan Institute has explored developments in implicit bias research in education. Schools are oftentimes believed to have the power in promoting more positive racial attitudes and allowing all to partake equitably in society (e.g., Banks et al., 2006). However, teachers and school administrators who are entrusted with fulfilling this capacity, are themselves immersed in a social environment where implicit racial biases are pervasive (Nosek et al., 2007; Gullo & Beachum, 2020). For this multi-year State of the Science report, we examined 33 articles published between 2018-2020 that interrogated the role of implicit racial bias in education

# data[].attributes.body
Discrepancies in levels of discipline are common for teachers who are ignorant of their implicit biases.

# data[].attributes.headline
Global and Cultural Competence Framework from Early Learning to Postsecondary Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Global and Cultural Competence Framework from Early Learning to Postsecondary Education

# data[].attributes.body
Cultural adaptability enhances the effectiveness of services and programs by making them more relevant and accessible to diverse populations.

# data[].attributes.body
Willingness to develop cultural knowledge promotes empathy and respect among people, while also improving listening and communication skills.

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.title
Building Cultural Competency: Skills for Understanding Diversity and Inclusion — Meridian Counseling

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
Learn the essential skills for cultural competency to foster inclusion and understanding. Discover practical ways to build empathy and respect across diverse backgrounds.

# data[].attributes.body
Managing differences reduces potential for conflict and increases productivity.

# data[].attributes.body
Self-assessments identify strengths and weaknesses, bolster self-awareness, and encourage improvement

# data[].attributes.headline
Each Aspect of the Framework and its Significance

# data[].attributes.subject
Each Aspect of the Framework and its Significance

# data[].attributes.body
Valuing diversity prevents exclusion, fosters cohesion, collaboration, and appreciation for unique perspectives.

# data[].attributes.body
Each of the aforementioned factors can and will be seen or experienced in classrooms. Differences in these factors deeply influence how students interact with each other and with their teachers, as well as how teachers interact with their students and with other adults in their vicinity. For example, differences in identity or expression of gender, sexuality, religion, and ethnicity all heavily influence with whom students fraternize while in school. It is the duty of teachers to help students understand that these difference don't need to be divisive, and that listening to and sharing differing perspectives is what leads to individual and collective growth.

# data[].attributes.body
A few types of implicit bias I have found myself guilty of before are gender bias, age bias, affinity bias, and confirmation bias.

# data[].attributes.body
In my own future classrooms, I will create culturally immersive lessons which include all members of the diverse population of the school. I will exhibit an appreciation for diversity, routinely do self-assessments, and remain culturally adaptable and always willing to learn about other cultures.

# data[].attributes.body
Teachers can maintain different expectations for students as result of implicit bias, which in turn can create discrepancies in academic performance for certain demographics.

# data[].attributes.headline
Measuring Implicit Bias in Schools: Harvard School of Education

# data[].attributes.subject
Measuring Implicit Bias in Schools: Harvard School of Education

# data[].attributes.attachment_link.description
A new study finds evidence that teachers’ implicit bias may lead to unequal student outcomes.

# data[].attributes.body
Implicit biases can lead to preferential treatment for students who share affinities with teachers, and in turn excluding those who don't share the same affinities.

# data[].attributes.body
Preferential treatment is among the most common implicit biases involved in teacher-student relationships. It is human nature to gravitate towards those we share common ground with, but in the interest of inclusion and fairness, it should be avoided as much as possible.