TY - JOUR
T1 - Unconscious Bias Interventions for Business
T2 - An Initial Test of WAGES-Business (Workshop Activity for Gender Equity Simulation) and Google's “re:Work” Trainings
AU - McCormick-Huhn, Kaitlin
AU - Kim, Lizbeth M.
AU - Shields, Stephanie A.
N1 - Funding Information:
Acknowledgment of unconscious bias was measured on a five-item scale, e.g., “People hold unconscious biases about social groups even if they believe all group members in society are equal.” Acknowledgment of bias differed between the three intervention conditions, F(2, 213) = 4.44, p =.013, d = 0.41, 95% CI [0.09, 0.66]). Planned comparisons revealed that acknowledgment of bias scores was higher for WAGES-Business than control (p =.005, d = 0.47, 95% CI [0.14, 0.80]), supporting Hypothesis 1. See Table 2 for means and standard deviations. Acknowledgment scores were higher for Google's training than control (p =.028, d = 0.38, 95% CI [0.04, 0.71]), supporting Hypothesis 2. Failing to support Hypothesis 3, differences between WAGES-Business and Google's training scores were nonsignificant (p =.565, d = 0.10, 95% CI [−0.23, 0.42]). Note. Different subscripts indicate the conditions significantly differed from one another on planned comparisons tests on the variable of interest (by at least p <.05). WAGES indicates WAGES-Business, Google indicates Google's training, and Control indicates the control condition. Acknowledge indicates acknowledgment of bias, KGE indicates knowledge of gender equity issues in the workplace, Discuss indicates willingness to discuss bias, Confront indicates willingness to confront bias, React. indicates reactance, and Self-eff. indicates self-efficacy. In Study 1, both Google's “Unconscious Bias @ Work” and WAGES-Business resulted in greater acknowledgment of bias than a control condition, providing support for the effectiveness of the interventions to enhance their target outcome of increasing general awareness of bias. Further, in Study 2a, both Google's training with the “Bias Busting @ Work” module and WAGES-Business with the modified role-playing activity and additional handout resulted in greater concern about unconscious bias than a control condition, demonstrating effectiveness of both interventions to motivate this attitude. Although effect sizes of difference are small to moderate for these outcomes, even small gains in acknowledgment of bias and concern about bias could be meaningful to enhance people's sensitivity to unconscious bias in the workplace. These initial promising findings of both interventions relative to a control provide proof of concept for the effectiveness of WAGES-Business and demonstrate effectiveness of Google's trainings with people outside of Google. Initial findings can serve as a foundation for future design considerations to make such interventions more effective and long-lasting. Results also indicate that WAGES-Business promoted greater concern about unconscious bias relative to Google's training. The difference in concern promoted by the two interventions was not mediated by negative affective or threatened freedom reactance, as predicted. Although negative affective and threatened freedom reactance were greater for WAGES-Business than Google's training, all ratings across conditions were low (ratings between 1 and 2.5 on a scale of 1–7). Particular to WAGES-Business, the experiential learning process may have caused relatively greater negative affect and threatened freedom, as countering preconceptions and forming new theories about the subject matter can be challenging for participants (Kolb, 1984). Such differences were not, however, significantly correlated with concern about unconscious bias felt by WAGES-Business participants (correlation coefficients for Study 2a for WAGES-Business condition only: concern and negative affective reactance, r = −.16; concern and threatened freedom reactance, r = −.19). Thus, another feature of WAGES-Business and the experiential learning process, such as experiencing bias through gameplay on the level of the first-person, may have promoted additional concern from WAGES-Business participants, while limiting negative experiences of reactance. Concern about unconscious bias mediated the effects of both interventions compared to control on willingness to confront bias, and this association was stronger for WAGES-Business than for Google's training. Comparing the correlation coefficients between measures in Studies 1 and 2a, acknowledgment of bias was only significantly correlated with KGE and intentions to discuss bias (see Table 1) yet concern about bias was also significantly correlated with intentions to confront bias (see Table 3). Together, findings illustrate a conceptual difference between acknowledging the existence of bias and identifying bias as something that one is concerned about and that requires action. Findings reveal a limitation of the typical practice of measuring general awareness of unconscious bias rather than the more targeted outcome of concern about unconscious bias. Although some research has examined constructs such as perceived harm of everyday sexism (Cundiff et al., 2014) and concern about racial discrimination (Devine, Forscher, Austin, & Cox, 2012), to our knowledge, our scale is the first to measure people's concern about unconscious bias for various social group members. The scale we devised to measure concern about unconscious bias could be used in existing and future intervention work to examine if interventions are affecting this key dimension of people's attitudes toward unconscious bias. Our findings also have implications for future and existing interventions that seek to address people's intentions and behavior surrounding confronting.
Publisher Copyright:
© 2019 The Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues
PY - 2020/12
Y1 - 2020/12
N2 - Training employees about unconscious bias is gaining importance for employers, yet most trainings have not been evaluated and, to our knowledge, no theory-grounded interventions for business exist. We developed such an intervention for business, WAGES-Business. In Studies 1 and 2a, undergraduates (N = 216; N = 246) were randomly assigned to WAGES-Business, Google's “re:Work” training, or a control. Study 2a participants, contacted 7–14 days later for Study 2b (N = 126), responded to bias relevant and irrelevant vignettes. Across studies, participants in Google's training and WAGES-Business demonstrated greater acknowledgment and concern about unconscious bias relative to a control. Participants in WAGES-Business reported greater concern than participants in Google's training. WAGES-Business participants also had relatively greater knowledge of workplace gender equity issues postintervention, and demonstrated selectively greater recognition of bias and willingness to confront bias, relative to control, after 7–14 days. Both interventions yielded greater willingness to discuss and confront bias relative to control when interventions involved actively practicing these behaviors. Results suggest the importance of active practice and concern about bias, but not bias acknowledgment, for confronting intentions. Overall, findings underscore the need for intervention evaluation, suggest a distinction between bias acknowledgment and concern, and suggest WAGES-Business may be more promising for intervention than Google's training.
AB - Training employees about unconscious bias is gaining importance for employers, yet most trainings have not been evaluated and, to our knowledge, no theory-grounded interventions for business exist. We developed such an intervention for business, WAGES-Business. In Studies 1 and 2a, undergraduates (N = 216; N = 246) were randomly assigned to WAGES-Business, Google's “re:Work” training, or a control. Study 2a participants, contacted 7–14 days later for Study 2b (N = 126), responded to bias relevant and irrelevant vignettes. Across studies, participants in Google's training and WAGES-Business demonstrated greater acknowledgment and concern about unconscious bias relative to a control. Participants in WAGES-Business reported greater concern than participants in Google's training. WAGES-Business participants also had relatively greater knowledge of workplace gender equity issues postintervention, and demonstrated selectively greater recognition of bias and willingness to confront bias, relative to control, after 7–14 days. Both interventions yielded greater willingness to discuss and confront bias relative to control when interventions involved actively practicing these behaviors. Results suggest the importance of active practice and concern about bias, but not bias acknowledgment, for confronting intentions. Overall, findings underscore the need for intervention evaluation, suggest a distinction between bias acknowledgment and concern, and suggest WAGES-Business may be more promising for intervention than Google's training.
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=85076128806&partnerID=8YFLogxK
UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=85076128806&partnerID=8YFLogxK
U2 - 10.1111/asap.12191
DO - 10.1111/asap.12191
M3 - Article
AN - SCOPUS:85076128806
SN - 1529-7489
VL - 20
SP - 26
EP - 65
JO - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
JF - Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy
IS - 1
ER -