Blindspot: Hidden Biases of Good People

Harmful negative stereotypes can be detrimental to their recipients as well as to the people who hold them. The chapter focuses on some of the most damaging consequences of stereotypes, which include inhibiting opportunities as well as their role in causing “violence, imprisonment, even death” (95). The authors return to the idea of dissociation, when a person is unaware that they hold two opposing ideas—one reflective, one automatic. What the authors have not yet addressed is whether someone can actually endorse an idea that is automatic. The difference is important, as endorsement goes beyond awareness and requires one “to put one’s own skin in the game” (97). They conclude, however, that with automatic thoughts, the distinction is “meaningless” (98) because it is difficult to endorse that which we are unaware.

It may be difficult to understand how we hold ideas that don’t endorse, but our minds are shaped by the culture around us. It is extremely difficult to think beyond the predominant ideology of the larger society. The authors speculate that if members of the flat-Earth society took an IAT about the shape of the Earth, they would probably find that they have a preference for the Earth as a sphere because that’s what they—along with everyone else—have been taught from a young age.

The authors turn to an experiment on memory that asked people to respond if a name was that of someone famous. On the first day, the subjects were given a list of regular names. On the second day, they were given the same names from the day before, along with a new set of names and the names of famous people. When asked which people were famous, some included those on the list from day one, even though those people were not famous. The familiarity with those names is what caused the confusion. The subjects had to ask themselves if a name was familiar “because it was on the list yesterday” (100) or because the person was famous. Familiarity can lead to the mindbug of thinking people are famous even when they aren’t.

The authors took the experiment a step further by trying to determine if the people thought to be famous were more likely to be male—since in most societies men are generally more likely to achieve fame than women. The authors added some female names to the list but found that men were much more likely to be thought of as famous. This “false-fame mindbug” (101) can be a potential advantage to men if they are in a position to benefit from people assuming “that they have accomplished something when in fact they have not” (101). Participants in the study were not even aware that gender played a role in their decision-making, indicating an obvious blindspot. Other studies by the authors soon followed, suggesting that automatic stereotypes could have potentially damaging effects.

Two particularly costly stereotypes include one that views Black men as criminals and another that sees Asian Americans as unequal to white Americans in terms of their citizenship in the United States. The idea that Black men are associated with crime and violence is a persistent stereotype in our culture. The authors include an IAT for the reader to take to demonstrate that association. The columns in Sheet A of the IAT include a list with the categories “weapons or Afr. Am. faces” or “harmless objects or Eur. Am. faces,” (103) while Sheet B includes a list with the categories “weapons or Eur. Am. faces” or “harmless objects or Afr. Am. faces.” (104). The weapons included on the test were those from previous centuries, many of which are associated with European cultures, rather than modern-day weapons that are typically associated with urban crime.

The results of the IAT showed that the association “Black = weapons” (105) was prevalent among all groups of people who took the test, most notably among whites and Asians. However, it also occurred among Hispanics and, to a lesser degree, African Americans. Education level of test-takers also didn’t matter, as well-educated people made the association as much as those with little education. Black men must deal with the impact of this association in their day-to-day lives. It can be particularly evident in interactions with law enforcement, as Black men are mistakenly shot by members of law enforcement more often than white men. The authors include the example of 23-year-old Guinean immigrant Amadou Diallo, who was shot by NYPD in February 1999 after police mistook him for a serial rapist. When he reached for his wallet, the officers involved thought he was reaching for a gun and fired at him 41 times. The authors conclude that two “errors in judgment” (107) may have been at work. The first is the fact that white Americans are not always able tell the faces of Black Americans apart as easily as they can the faces of white Americans. The second is the “Black = weapons stereotype” (107), which in this case may have led NYPD to mistake a wallet for a gun. Such blindspots “require no malign intent and yet impose costs” (107).

There is a “burden of suspicion” (107)—a phrase introduced by Stanford psychologist Claude Steele—that is carried around by some people who are part of a group considered “suspect” (107) by society. The authors cite as an example the case of Wen Ho Lee, a nuclear scientist from Taiwan who worked at Los Alamos in New Mexico. In 1999 he was accused of espionage, among other charges, and received 9 months in prison. However, his case soon unraveled and he eventually won over a million dollars in a lawsuit against the U.S. government. The authors believe Lee “carried a burden of suspicion” (108) because he was Chinese. The many people involved in Lee’s case may have been acting entirely in good faith but carried stereotypes that created “their own compelling mental evidence” (108).

Lee’s case led the authors to conduct research investigating a stereotype that Asian Americans “are perceived as foreigners in their own country” (109). An IAT testing the association between Asians and foreignness found that all respondents—both white and Asian American—more often associated white Americans with American symbols than Asian Americans. Another such IAT that included famous white foreigners and famous Asian Americans found that the famous white foreigners were also more likely to be associated with “the concept American” (110) than the Asian Americans. The “birther” (110) movement that developed with the election of Barack Obama indicated the “American = White” (110) stereotype in action. While many hold this belief, those who voted for Obama were able to put the association aside. Birthers, on the other hand, consciously contended that Obama was not a U.S. citizen.

Stereotypes can be “self-defeating” (111) in that members of a group can apply negative stereotypes to themselves. Such an idea is related to the concept of “stereotype threat” (111), a term from psychologist Claude Steele in which individuals from stereotyped groups, like women or Black Americans, will underperform academically if they are reminded that they are part of these stereotyped groups. The authors explain that although women are now over half the workforce, long-standing stereotypes associating women with the home and domesticity still stand. They offer a “gender-career IAT” (112) with the associations “female = home” and “male = career” (112) for the reader to take to affirm the point. Sheet A contains a list under the categories “FEMALE or family,” or “MALE or career” (113), while Sheet B’s list is under the categories “FEMALE or career,” or “MALE or family” (114). Data showed 75% of male respondents associated “male” with “work” and “female” with “family” (115), and 80% of female respondents did the same. However, the authors offer some “optimism” (115) by reporting that younger test takers did not experience this automatic bias on the same level as older ones. They speculate that in the future, the stereotype could disappear completely.

Further research demonstrated that stereotypes held by women about their domestic lives can present obstacles to their own success. A test conducted by Rutgers University psychologist Laurie Rudman found that women who associated a “romantic partner” (116) with a “Prince Charming figure” (116) were less likely to pursue their own goals than women who perceived a partner as a “regular guy” (116). The result of these gender stereotypes can translate into lost wages, as another study revealed that test subjects—both male and female—were more likely to take a lower-paying job to work with a male boss than a higher-paying job with a female boss. Their choice to do so was not conscious, demonstrating that this self-defeating bias was a hidden one. The results of these types of studies show that people do not “always act in their own self-interest” (118).

In fact, research shows that people will go to great lengths to maintain the existing status quo. They will make costly sacrifices to perpetuate social hierarchies, even if they are from a disadvantaged group. People in poverty, for example, may feel they are not smart and therefore do not deserve to be uplifted out of their situation.

Other studies by the authors, along with other researchers, found a strong association between the categories science or math and “male” (119). Women who made this association were less likely to pursue a major in science. Gender stereotypes, the authors argue, not only influence behavior but can have a direct bearing on the path we take in life. Since fewer women pursue math or science, it can seem as though they do not have the same ability as men in these disciplines. However, in past decades women have continued to close the gender gap in terms of high math SAT scores, revealing that a simple genetic explanation for a lack of women in scientific fields of study does not hold up. The authors further found that the greater the association between “science” and “male” (121) in a given country, the larger the gap between the scientific and mathematical achievements of eighth-grade males and females—with boys consistently outperforming girls. Although a genetic explanation still holds some cultural weight, the evidence for this stereotype is wearing increasingly thin.

Chapter 7 begins by introducing the relationship between automatic thoughts, hidden biases, and intergroup conflict. Blindspots, the authors argue, can be a trigger for deep, sustained, and sometimes violent conflict within groups. The authors then turn their attention to the concept of “imprinting” (125) in which newborn animals, including humans, bond with their caregivers—which is usually their mother. However, as studies have indicated, the process is somewhat flexible and bonding can occur with “whatever is offered up by the environment and reinforced with repeated exposure” (126). There is a tendency to “favor the familiar” (126). In humans, this tendency can create divisions between what we know—“us”—and what we don’t—“them” (127).

The identities we form determine who we accept and who we consider to be different. However, researchers are still trying to understand when imprinting occurs and becomes permanent. Human brains at birth are extremely malleable and have a lot of forming to do before they mature—more so than other species. Human identity formation and behavior is therefore more flexible and less rigid. However, the authors describe human babies as entering the world “‘prepared’ to form preferences” (128). Those who are familiar to the baby will be easier to distinguish apart. Those who are unfamiliar will be harder to identify, potentially forming the basis of a mindbug in which “members of groups other than our own look (and even behave) ‘alike’” (128). In psychology, this phenomenon is known as the “out-group homogeneity effect” (129). There is flexibility here too, as French psychologists found that babies are accepting of new information and can become more sensitive to out-groups through increased exposure to them. Infant behavior is measured by how long they look at someone, and if they are willing to take a toy from them.

While our identities are unique, they are tied to our understanding of groups we recognize and groups we don’t. Some group identities are a choice, such as becoming an athlete or scholar, while others are involuntary. Research has shown that young children do not generally recognize group distinctions unless they are told there’s a difference, which is how stereotyping begins. One of the earliest distinctions children make is between male and female. Studies suggest that children are “strongly influenced” (132) by the decisions of those who identify as their same gender. The same holds for those who are in the same age and racial group. The extent to which children conform to their group indicates there might be limits to personal choice that ultimately prevent individuals from reaching their potential.

Our group identities can have an enormous impact on our behavior. In terms of racial identity, research has shown that both Black people and white people tend to be more fearful of those they consider different. In a 1970 experiment by British psychologist Henri Tajfel, individuals who were divided into two groups based on arbitrary differences began to give resources only to those in their own group. They were also willing—in another example of self-defeating behavior—to part with resources to “maximize” (137) boundaries between groups. The study showed that an “‘us’ and ‘them’” (136) mentality can be created when some people are told they are arbitrarily connected—as a “minimal group” (136)—but others lack that particular connection.

Further studies have attempted to map how the brain “distinguishes us and them” (137). A study by Jason Mitchell at Harvard University gave subjects an MRI as they answered questions about two different male college students—Mark and John. The findings revealed that different neuron clusters were activated depending on how closely one identified with each of the two men. For those who identified with John, answering questions about him activated the medial prefrontal cortex (mPFC). Answering questions about Mark activated neurons in the dorsal region of the mPFC. When we identify with someone and try to think about what they would do in a certain situation, it’s called a “simulation” (139). This can be problematic in the sense that we are unaware that different parts of our brain are activated whether we identify with someone or not. Our decisions may therefore be affected without our knowledge.

To conclude the chapter, the authors share an anecdote about a colleague of Banaji’s named Carla Kaplan. She was an American literature professor at Yale in the 1980s and loved to quilt. One night she cut her hand and went to the ER of the Yale-New Haven Hospital, which was an affiliate of Yale University . Carla’s boyfriend stressed to the doctor that she needed her hand undamaged due to her quilting hobby. The doctor reassured her as long as they put in stitches quickly, it should not be a problem. A student volunteer suddenly recognized Carla as one of her professors. When the doctor realized Carla was a Yale professor, he brought in the finest hand surgeon in the state and her hand was restored “to perfection” (141). The authors point out the “‘us’/’them’ distinction” (141) in the story: once the Yale doctor recognized Carla as one of his own, part of “the Yale in-group” (141), he gave her the best care possible. The “intergroup discrimination” (142) may be less about hostile behavior to the out-group and more about giving extra help to the in-group. The authors refer to this phenomenon—of privileging the in-group—as “hidden discrimination” (142). In Carla’s case, there were several ways the bias was hidden. The doctor was unaware of his biases and would not have been able to tell someone that he preferred a Yale professor over someone who quilts. The fact that his first choice of treatment would not have brought any harm would also make it difficult to identify that there was a bias in operation at his moment of decision. It was also hidden because no one was harmed or blatantly discriminated against. When biases serve to help the in-group, they can work to deprive resources from “those on the bottom rungs of society” (143). Blindspots can hide “privileges” (144) as much as “discriminations” (144).