UK Government’s Ban on Unconscious Bias and Diversity Training Should Extend to Private Companies

On 16th December, the Conservative Government in the UK announced that Unconscious Bias training and Diversity training are to be ended for civil servants and have encouraged other parts of the public sector to follow suit. 

There is considerable evidence suggesting that these forms of training, despite claiming to reduce bias, may actually promote racial and gender biases in some cases. The Government states that there is also not enough evidence to support the view that the training makes positive changes to either attitudes or behaviour to support their continuation.

The Government’s actions may provide enough of an incentive for private companies to follow the government’s lead, as they would not wish to be associated with training which the government does not believe to be effective. However, this cannot be expected. Many private companies will likely have human resource departments that will advocate for these training sessions for ideological purposes, irrespective of evidence. 

Therefore, if the UK government truly wishes to continue its ‘fight against racism and sexism’, it should not allow training that risks reinforcing racist and sexist attitudes in the private sector. 

The Evidence: Diversity Training 

Research into the impact of compulsory training found that even diversity coaches reported that employees tend to react to compulsory training with anger and act uncooperatively throughout the training session. There is also evidence to suggest that the frustration with the training being compulsory translates into greater levels of animosity towards other racial or gender groups overall. This would mean that such training is having the complete opposite effect than intended. 

Voluntary training seems to alleviate some of these issues, as detailed by a Canadian study into the differences in impact when the training was mandatory and when it was voluntary. The study asked white subjects to read a pamphlet which criticised racist attitudes towards black people and then measured their response. When pressured to agree with the content, people viewed black people more negatively than before. When they felt like their choice was voluntary, they were more willing to get on board with the points that the pamphlet had raised. 

In perhaps one of the most extensive studies, 830 large US companies were examined over a 30-year-long period. The researchers found evidence to suggest that mandatory diversity training did not increase the number of women in management positions and in some cases, the training even seemed to have slightly reduced the number. The study suggests a form of ‘backfire effect’ - meaning that the training reinforced racial and gender stereotypes instead of alleviating them.

It is presumed in studies that found a ‘backfire effect’ that the participants reacted negatively to the training for three main reasons:

1. People resent being forced to do something and are not receptive to the training.

2. The training raises awareness of negative stereotypes which people can then adopt themselves.

3. The training gives employees the impression that the ‘diversity problem’ has been solved and any differences in outcomes are now justified.

An extensive study that investigated the impact of diversity training between the years 1964 and 2008 found that the training left participants without the tools to interpret the information they had received. The researchers state:

“Some of the unintended consequences were that many left confused, angry, or with more animosity toward differences. With no formal follow-up, employees were left on their own to interpret and internalize what they had learned. Many interpreted the key learning point as having to walk on eggshells around women and minorities — choosing words carefully so as not to offend. Some surmised that it meant White men were villains, still others assumed that they would lose their jobs to minorities and women, while others concluded that women and minorities were simply too sensitive.”

Overall, the evidence suggests that to avoid the ‘backfire effect’ this training cannot be compulsory. However, if participation is voluntary, presumably only those already sympathetic to the teachings will attend and those with more ‘problematic’ beliefs will avoid attending - suggesting that the training fails to reach and change its target beliefs. Equally, sessions would need to be repeatedly followed-up upon to avoid a variety of unhelpful attitudes from forming. This would take a large amount of time and resources, which may not be feasible for many businesses. Even with a charitable reading of the evidence, it appears that the effectiveness of this training is very limited and in some cases can make the issue worse. 

The Evidence: Unconscious Bias Training 

Participants react to compulsory Unconscious Bias training in similarly negative ways to compulsory Diversity training, with an observable ‘backfire effect’. It is presumed that the aforementioned causes apply to Unconscious Bias training just as much as Diversity training. 

There is less extensive research into the ‘backfire effect’ in this form of training, but this merely due to this form of training being less than two decades old. However, there is no reason to suspect that the ‘backfire effect’ would not appear in response to this form of training too.

Much of the defence of Unconscious Bias training is based upon a small body of evidence to suggest that the primary unconscious bias test (the Implicit Association - IAT) is effective at raising awareness of certain issues if participants are debriefed and sessions are followed-up. 

However, at a conceptual level, this does not make sense. For an individual to be aware of something, it cannot be related to the unconscious, as awareness is what divides conscious mental processes from the unconscious ones. The entire premise of this training is that it combats unconscious bias, which, by definition is beyond our awareness. Therefore, using evidence of ‘awareness raising’ to suggest an individual's unconscious bias has changed is conceptually absurd.

Much of the research seeking to validate this training seems to be based on a gross misunderstanding of what the unconscious mind is, what it does, and how it can be influenced. This misconceptualisation likely contributes to the findings that this training has a limited impact on the actual unconscious mind. 

To further reiterate how ineffective this form of training is, there is also very little evidence to suggest that the limited changes made to the unconscious mind actually manifest in real-world behavioural change. 

In sum, much of the research in support of the effectiveness of this form of training misunderstands what the unconscious is. The unconscious mind is a collection of automatic processes that occur beyond our own awareness or control. It is true that our behaviour and actions can change how our unconscious mind operates, but simply ‘raising awareness’ is going to do very little, as awareness is the domain of the conscious mind. 

Conclusions

In a society that is already mostly hostile towards negative racial and gender attitudes, what would the benefit be in taking part in training which runs the risk of further promoting these attitudes instead? As being called racist or sexist is one of the most taboo labels in modern western societies, and only becoming increasingly more taboo over time, the issue may well solve itself without the associated risk of exacerbating these issues with these questionable training sessions.

It appears that making this training compulsory may run a risk of reinforcing negative attitudes rather than combating them - therefore this should not be used, especially if societal attitudes are already evolving in a positive direction. There is a small body of evidence suggesting positive results when participation was voluntary. However, those who participate are likely to be already receptive to the messages being communicated. The impact these training sessions have are at best limited and at worst counter-productive to the stated goals.