For the past few years, implicit bias and antidiscrimination have become buzzwords in many police departments; agencies have phoned in experts and mandated additional bias training for officers at an increasing rate—especially considering current social events in the field of law enforcement. However, there are still many doubts, cynicisms, and fallacies surrounding the topic of implicit bias. Thus, to alleviate the growing public pressure toward the policing community, it is imperative that officers of all ranks are able to have a working knowledge of how to respond to the following questions: What exactly is implicit bias? What can police officers do to address implicit bias? What programs and systems can departments utilize to promote awareness and address implicit bias present in their organizations?
Understanding Implicit Bias
This discussion requires an understanding of implicit bias and what it entails. Implicit bias is the unconscious, unknowing differential treatment of another person based on a number of discriminatory factors, including but not limited to race, color, age, sex, gender, nationality, disability, and religion.1 These factors may look familiar because they include Title VI protected classes; however, implicit bias can involve more than the scope of Title VI. The theory of implicit bias is rooted in the field of cognitive psychology in which it is best explained as a dual-process function, broken down into system 1 processes and system 2 processes.2 System 1 is described as an automatic, intuitive thought process that is heuristically based, whereas system 2 is a product of reflection—using deduction and rule application.3 In layman’s terms, a system 1 reaction is a flash reaction to a stimulus based on pre-known ideas or experiences, a sort of shortcut in forming a thought. A system 2 reaction is the conscious response to the initial bias experienced in system 1. For system 1, these pre-known ideas or experiences (referred to as heuristics in the cognitive psychology field) are not necessarily correct or an accurate perception of the actual stimulus; however, these heuristics guide many common daily thought processes to simplify cognitive effort. Experts Daniel Kahneman and Shane Frederick also assert that intuitive judgment becomes expressed judgment only after going through system 2 processing.4 The pair cited the Stroop test, which consists of stating the color of a word, which found that test subjects tend to have a response delay when the word itself is a color name—an example being the word “red” colored blue. The error rate for the testing was found to be low; however, this is due to the extra response time taken to actually process the information requested via the deliberation of system 2. Thus, from this example, it can be seen that since implicit bias is an automatic response, there will be a corresponding system 2 process that is able to express information without external bias.
As stated above, system 2 is where deliberation and self-aware thinking come into play. While it is a slower process, it can be influenced by the automated thoughts of system 1 in which it may take less mental effort to think a certain way when faced with an unfamiliar topic or situation. Outward bias is eliminated in system 2 in a number of ways, some of which become variables themselves in determining how well bias is eliminated—or not. For example, intelligence was found to have a relationship with eliminating bias, showing that individuals with high IQs have a stronger propensity to overcome erroneous intuition.5 Other variable factors for system 2 include experience, statistical knowledge, and frequency of exposure.
Looking at the cognitive process of implicit bias, it becomes clear why it is actually commonplace in the field of policing; officers face a multitude of complex scenarios and experiences throughout the course of their careers. While implicit bias regarding race may be the most commonly used example, the automatic, unconscious heuristics and thoughts of system 1 are critical mental skills to manage and enhance an officer’s ability to recognize when something may be out of place or when danger may be imminent. However, regarding racial bias, it is imperative that officers are trained in a baseline understanding of implicit bias and how it may impact their thought processes, which will help to ensure that they are engaging in fair and impartial policing. A 2001 study conducted by Anthony Greenwald and Nilanjana Dasgupta, supported the conclusion that implicit bias is indeed able to be influenced by external factors and variables.6 The study measured the delays in responses when participants were exposed to pictures of famous, liked and disliked, white and black individuals. The study measured the effect of the picture presentations immediately and 24 hours later. The results showed that not only is there a degree of stability to implicit bias over time, but that there is also some flexibility as to the degree of implicit bias depending on the nature of the exposures (positive or negative).7 While this experiment is not definitive proof that implicit bias can be eliminated from the ranks of police officers, it supports the argument that increasing cultural exposure and community interactions with police officers may decrease the initial effect of implicit bias.
Implicit Associations & Awareness
From a command officer or supervisory standpoint, subordinate officers should be encouraged to increase their understanding of implicit bias and self-evaluate their cognitive processes. One of the foremost ways to conduct self-evaluation for implicit bias is by utilizing the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Harvard University hosts a demonstration website called Project Implicit that offers IATs on various categories, including race, skin tone, sexual orientation, and even weight.8 Project Implicit was created in 1998 by cognitive psychologists Anthony Greenwald, Mahzarin Banaji, and Brian Nosek. The IAT uses word association and presents different picture representations of the measured groups. The test then analyzes the innate preference of the test taker by measuring the person’s reaction time in response to the various pictures when associated with positive or negative words. The IAT statistics have shown that Caucasians have higher automatic preference for Caucasians than for African Americans.9 Conversely, African Americans were found to also have a higher automatic preference for Caucasians, and the researchers at Project Implicit attribute this finding to the negative associations that have become assigned to their group due to social or cultural environments; it is also important to note that the correlation was not found to be nearly as strong as Caucasian same-group preference.10 While it is interesting to see the automatic preferences measured in this way, it should not be construed as being what one consciously thinks about the social groups.11 Conversely, in most cases, there are no existing conscious discriminations voiced by test subjects, who are often appalled to see that they have an automatic, unconscious preference for one racial group over the other. For police officers, this tool provides a unique method to self-analyze and examine how one’s own implicit bias may cause a change in behavior in certain circumstances. While it should not be a mandated policy, supervisors should encourage self-reflection of this nature as part of a professional development plan for their subordinates. It is imperative that implicit bias testing be used purely as an awareness-promoting tool and not be considered cause for any negative action, which could actually cause the opposite effect of reducing bias by increasing cynicism and negative feelings that skew the test results in a negative way.
“It is imperative that officers are trained in a baseline understanding of implicit bias and how it may impact their thought processes.”
In a study conducted by criminal justice researcher Lois James, bias patterns among police officers were analyzed using the IAT. Dr. James’s research also extends into the realm of sleep studies and the effects of fatigue, so she took the testing further by adding the variable of fatigue to the experiment by testing the subjects with varying degrees of rest prior to taking the test.12 During the study, there was a wide distribution of sleep times for the officers involved, ranging from 2.5 to 14.5 hours; the impact of the lack of sleep and fatigue had a significant effect on the level of implicit bias measured on the IAT study. In sessions one through four of the study, the overwhelming majority of the officers had either a slight bias against black individuals, ranging from 11.3 percent to 20 percent, or a strong bias against black individuals ranging from 35.8 percent to 40 percent.13 It is important to recognize that these results are not representative of outward shows of bias but are measurements of the IAT study conducted on police officers with varying levels of fatigue and call histories. However, the vast majority of the officers displayed implicit bias against African Americans as measured in the study. Dr. James offered explanations for the results, explaining that fatigue correlated highly with the implicit bias measurement. Additionally, she mentions that cognitive dissonance played a role in delayed response times in the weapons IAT because participants would assume black pictures to be associated with weapons, and there would be additional reaction time to confirm or disprove the preconception.14 Cognitive dissonance is a thought process in which information is provided that may be contradictory or inconsistent with existing information or patterns, which causes a reevaluation of the existing information. Some limitations to the James study were that the racial diversity in the subject area was only 3 percent African American, which suggests that the study could have stronger results if the demographics of the region were different.15 Overall, the results of the study supported her underlying theory that implicit bias is variable, meaning that it can be influenced by certain factors and that it can change over the course of time. These findings are interesting since they compete with the past theories of implicit bias as being a more concrete process of thought.
Implicit Bias Training
This is indeed good news for all police agencies, who can provide awareness training for their officers to facilitate a movement toward diminishing bias. While bias may never disappear completely, understanding that positive social influence can impact implicit bias also should drive departmental policy to further develop community relationships with all demographics in their coverage areas. Not only will this increase visibility in communities, it should also decrease implicit bias.
For command staff and supervisors, the implementation of a formal implicit bias training program stands to be the first part of addressing the problem. In light of current events, many state regulatory agencies responsible for law enforcement licensing and agency accreditation are moving toward implementation of mandatory implicit bias programs in order to provide the knowledge to the officers at the field level, who are most likely to benefit from the program. While this concept is beneficial, it may also be effective for immediate supervisors and command-level positions to also engage in meaningful conversations and discussions of the concepts of implicit bias. The focus on implicit bias on a localized scale will also make the information applicable to the officers in a way that a large-scale presentation would be less able to do. Utilization of the IAT could also be a way to provide the command staff of a department an anonymous snapshot of the current climate among the officers in regard to implicit bias—if there are enough voluntary participants interested in providing the data to supervisors.
For an effect of implicit bias that hits close to home, officer-involved shooting (OIS) data provide examples of implicit bias in action. The Department of Justice awarded a grant to the Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, Police Department in 2013 to analyze the agency’s OIS statistics so as to develop better future solutions and strategies to eliminate shootings of unarmed individuals and to further educate their officers on the effects of unconscious bias. One of the more relevant findings was that there was an overemphasis on firearms training, and an underemphasis on defensive tactics, ground fighting, and non-lethal weapons training for PPD recruits.16 For in-service personnel, the data show racial disparity: 80 percent of the suspects involved in officer-involved shootings from 2007 to 2013 were black; however, 59 percent of the officers were white, and 34 percent of the officers were black.17 These statistics show that perhaps the underlying culture in the department and training academy may reinforce bias. While these statistics may be looked upon as critical, the department conducted this grant-based study to increase training standards for their recruits, increase the involvement of in-service training, and to increase the focus on community policing. This is a commendable practice; hopefully, it is beginning the departmental trend toward educating and developing junior officers in the ranks—which, in turn, will foster community relationships and impartial policing.
Conclusion
In conclusion, implicit bias is a dynamic facet that is highly relevant in the law enforcement community. As discussed above, implicit bias is possibly best described via the system 1 and system 2 processes; system 1 being the automatic, intuition that is derived primarily from heuristics—or in layman’s terms, the pre-observed/experienced formats that ease cognitive load when facing an unfamiliar or uncomfortable circumstance. While the stability of implicit bias is a subject of contention among cognitive psychologists, there are numerous studies showing the variance in implicit bias when the subject undergoes negative or positive stimuli. For law enforcement officers on the streets, a foundational understanding and awareness of implicit bias will assist them in engaging the community with empathy and developing a heightened sense of self-awareness. This can be accomplished by encouraging officers to self-evaluate using tools such as the IAT. For command staff and supervisors, continual development and training should be instituted to develop junior officers to increase their overall effectiveness with community engagement and to prepare them for the reigns of leadership in the future. For departments that have yet to institute implicit bias training into their in-service training programs, there are numerous third-party implicit bias training organizations as well as free tools and resources (such as the IAT) that can be used to prepare in-house development programs at the localized level. Regardless of what programming leadership chooses to implement, the current climate of policing necessitates a firm understanding of implicit bias to establish a professional and impartial service to the public.
Notes:
1Christine Jolls and Cass R. Sunstein, “The Law of Implicit Bias,” California Law Review 94, no. 4 (July 2006): 969–996.
2Daniel Kahneman and Shane Frederick, “Representativeness Revisited: Attribute Substitution in Intuitive Judgment,” in Heuristics and Biases: The Psychology of Intuitive Judgment, ed. Thomas Gilovich, Dale Griffin, and Daniel Kahneman (New York: Cambridge University Press, 2002), 15–58.
3Kahneman and Frederick, “Representativeness Revisited,” 51.
4Kahneman and Frederick, “Representativeness Revisited,” 57.
5Kahneman and Frederick, “Representativeness Revisited,” 68.
6Anthony G. Greenwald and Nilanjana Dasgupta, “On the Malleability of Automatic Attitudes: Combating Automatic Prejudice with Images of Admired and Disliked Individuals,” Journal of Personality and Social Psychology 81, no. 5 (2001): 800–814.
7Greenwald and Dasgupta, “On the Malleability of Automatic Attitudes,” 806–808.
8Project Implicit, “Frequently Asked Questions.”
9Project Implicit, “Frequently Asked Questions.”
10Project Implicit, “Frequently Asked Questions.”
11Project Implicit, “Frequently Asked Questions.”
12Lois James, “The Stability of Implicit Racial Bias in Police Officers,” Police Quarterly 21, no.1 (March 2018): 30–52.
13James, “The Stability of Implicit Racial Bias in Police Officers.”
14James, “The Stability of Implicit Racial Bias in Police Officers.”
15James, “The Stability of Implicit Racial Bias in Police Officers.”
16George Fachner and Steven Carter, Collaborative Reform Initiative: An Assessment of Deadly Force in the Philadelphia Police Department (Washington, DC: US Department of Justice: Office of Community Oriented Policing Service, 2015).
17Fachner and Carter, Collaborative Reform Initiative.
Please cite as
Jacob Stark, “Addressing Implicit Bias in Policing,” Police Chief Online, July 28, 2021.
