What is the problem with misuse? Is misuse not a big deal?

Leaving misuse unaddressed means nullifying the value of unconscious bias (implicit bias) research, which has garnered global attention, in Japan.  This is ridiculous.  The loss is immeasurable.  It also includes the benefits that society could have gained and the credibility of the country or organization that failed to scrutinize the misuse.

Furthermore, once misuse spreads, correction is not easy, and secondary damage occurs. Those who spread or have spread the misuse have no incentive to actively acknowledge their mistakes from a self-preservation perspective. These individuals are already in positions to disseminate information, and it takes energy to point out and correct their misuse. This results in secondary damage, where the energy that could have been spent on other matters is instead used for correction. This blog is one example.

If the content is not scrutinized, it is not easy to correct it after it has spread due to conflicts of interest among those involved.

Generated image of incorrectness

Their main counterargument to pointing out misuse is to downplay its impact by saying that there are more important things than misuse, so it doesn’t need to be addressed. They argue that if something more important is included, some errors can be tolerated.

But who decides what is tolerable?

Those spreading the misuse often cite unilateral judgments without fact-checking, such as “Let’s not assign responsible work to her because she’s a woman”, as examples of “unconscious bias” and claim that it is inappropriate. This is because it narrows the other person’s options without following a rational decision-making process. Similarly, their attitude of “We want to convey more important things, so let’s keep quiet about the misuse / not address them” is an inappropriate act of deciding without confirming whether the recipient wants to know about the misuse. If asked in a seminar or training on unconscious bias (implicit bias) whether they want to know that the term “unconscious bias” currently being spread in Japan is being misused with “substantiated” evidence, many people would answer “Yes”.  This is because no one wants to accept incorrect usage as the truth. “There are more important things” is merely the intention (probably for self-preservation) of the person saying it.

Moreover, whether there are more important things and whether it is misuse are separate issues. It is necessary to organize the points and discuss them. An objective perspective, distanced from vested interests, is required for verification.

Misuse in Japan: Other Unique Interpretations

Books and magazines

Does it manifest in presumptive or imposing behavior?

In Japan, unconscious bias (implicit bias) is said to manifest as presumptive or imposing behavior.

Examples of such behavior include:

“Recent young people are always…”

“Newcomers these days are…”

Presumptive or imposing behavior is believed to stem from a “self-defense mechanism.” This includes the belief that one is never wrong or that those in higher positions are always right. When individuals with such beliefs encounter unexpected reactions or results, they tend to blame others rather than themselves. For instance, a leader might say, “It’s not my fault! The problem is that the young people are too mentally weak!”

However, unconscious bias (implicit bias) does not refer to these personal beliefs or attitudes.

Such presumptive or imposing behavior is described as “self-righteous,” “selfish,” and “shifting responsibility,” which can create friction in social interactions and communication.

Implicit attitudes or implicit stereotypes do not always manifest in obvious behavior (Japan Society for Implicit Bias Research: What does research on implicit bias aim to solve? : Different gender resumes and famous-overnight).

References:

「「アンコンシャス・バイアス」マネジメント」2019/5/22　守屋 智敬

会計・監査ジャーナル：日本公認会計士協会機関紙「ダイバーシティ　会計プロフェッショナルファームの働き方改革実現に向けて（第9回）「働き方改革関連法施行後に留意すべきこと：無意識の偏見」2019/5　塚越 学

共済と保険「いま話題のテーマ！「アンコンシャスバイアス」を知る、気付く、意識する（４）アンコンシャスバイアスは、なぜうまれるのか？」2019/7, 8守屋 智敬

The Term “Self-Defense Mechanism”

As introduced in the term “Implicit,” unconscious bias (implicit bias) originates from the study of implicit memory. There is no mention of “self-defense mechanism” in the comprehensive literature summarizing its origins.

However, in Japan, unconscious bias (implicit bias) is identified as a “self-defense mechanism”. Where did this term come from?

Among the references in the books by a famous Japanese consultant, there is a book called “Organizational Traps” by Chris Argyris where “defensive reasoning” is repeatedly highlighted as an important term.

“In conclusion, Traps emerge and persist when individuals use Model I theory-in-use and defensive reasoning.  They cause skilled incompetence, skilled unawareness, and self-protective actions such as denial of denying, and making issues undiscussable, including the undiscussability of the undiscussable.” (“Organizational Traps”)

Note 1: Model I is a model with the following four values, protecting oneself against fundamental and destructive changes (from “Organizational Traps”):

1. Be in unilateral control.

2. Win and do not lose.

3. Suppress negative feelings.

4. Behave rationally.

The ‘unawareness’ in this book was translated into Japanese as ‘unconsciousness,’ which may have led to the conclusion that ‘self-defense mechanisms are the true nature of unconscious bias’ .

Besides the above-mentioned part, “unawareness” is often translated as “unconscious”.

However, the unawared actions and thoughts for survival in organizations, as described by Argyris, are different from the implicit biases related to people’s or groups’ attributes revealed by IAT, etc.

Furthermore, “defensive reasoning” here refers to the (self-preservation) thinking framework of organizational people, not the typical psychological defensive routines or cognitive dissonance in social psychology. If this “defensive reasoning” is confused with these psychological terms and the scope of the incorrect interpretation of unconscious bias (implicit bias) is expanded, it is inappropriate.

References:

https://banaji.sites.fas.harvard.edu/research/publications/articles/2017_Greenwald_AP.pdf

「あなたのチームがうまくいかないのは「無意識」の思いこみのせいです」守屋智敬 2017/11/1

「「アンコンシャス・バイアス」マネジメント」守屋智敬 2019/5/22

「組織の罠」クリス・アージリス 2016/4/19、原著 ”Organizational Traps”　2010/4/29

“無意識の思いこみ”

Unconscious bias (潜在的バイアス) is sometimes translated as “無意識の思い込み”.  I cannot translate it into English because I don't understand the Japanese term.

The following is an excerpt from “What is Unconscious Bias?” by the Unconscious Bias Research Institute (https://www.unconsciousbias-lab.org/unconscious-bias):

“At the Unconscious Bias Research Institute, when it is necessary to provide a Japanese translation, we intentionally use ‘無意識の思い込み’. The main reason is that unconscious bias can apply not only to ‘others’ but also to ‘oneself’ and ‘things.’ For example, an unconscious bias towards oneself might be, ‘I can’t do it anyway…’ When expressing unconscious bias towards oneself in Japanese, we concluded that ‘unconsciously assuming I can’t do it’ is better than ‘prejudice.’ Additionally, when applying Japanese translations to various examples, we found that ‘unconscious prejudice’ did not fit well, leading us to adopt ‘無意識の思い込み’”.

Here, unconscious bias is understood to include psychological syndromes (such as “Imposter Syndrome”), confirmation bias, and normalcy bias. Therefore, it is translated as “思い込み” rather than “prejudice” to cover a broader range. However, using unconscious bias as a general term for such biases is not considered appropriate (Japan Society for Implicit Bias Research: Unconscious bias, is it a general term for biases?).

References:

「あなたのチームがうまくいかないのは「無意識」の思いこみのせいです」守屋智敬 2017/11/1

「「アンコンシャス・バイアス」マネジメント」守屋智敬 2019/5/22

A Broader Definition

“The term ‘unconscious bias’ has a broader meaning beyond prejudice. For example, behaviors influenced by past experiences, such as ‘My judgment has always been correct because I have always succeeded’ or ‘I failed before, so I must fail this time too,’ are also forms of unconscious bias. Additionally, having complacent thoughts like ‘A little delay won’t be a problem’ or ‘It’s okay not to report this minor mistake’ are also considered unconscious biases.” (「あなたのチームがうまくいかないのは「無意識」の思いこみのせいです」守屋智敬 2017/11/1)

Such behaviors and thoughts are not considered unconscious biases (implicit biases).

Reference: 

「あなたのチームがうまくいかないのは「無意識」の思いこみのせいです」守屋智敬 2017/11/1

Misuse in Japan: Factors Leading to Deviation in Interpretation

One of the reasons for the deviation in interpretation mentioned above in Japan is that the leaflet introduced in 2016 (djrenrakukai.org/doc_pdf/2019/UnconsciousBias_leaflet.pdf) used the term “Unconscious Bias” instead of the academically mainstream “Implicit Bias” and was disseminated to universities, academic societies, and the Cabinet Office.

If “Implicit Bias” had been adopted, the Japanese term “潜在的な思い込み” would have been unnatural, and it would not have led to a broad interpretation like "無意識の思い込み”.

The term “無意識の” is also used in everyday conversation to mean “thoughtless,” “unintentional,” or “vague” in Japanese.  From this, it is possible that “unconscious bias” was misunderstood to include things that are usually thought of vaguely. Therefore, the author believes that it was considered possible to reflect on these biases through simple questions or checklists. 

 Generated image for a checklist

Misuse in Japan: Derived from Differences in Word Usage

Let’s look at the interpretation of unconscious bias in the books authored by Tomotaka Moriya and Masako Arakane.

“Unconsciously biased perspectives are referred to as ‘unconscious bias.’” (From “Your Team’s Struggles Are Due to Unconscious Bias”, by Moriya)

The phrase “unconsciously biased perspectives” is used here, and the term “unconsciously” is used in the everyday sense of “without thinking,” “unintentionally,” or “without any particular reason.” This is supported by the checklist items previously quoted. In other words, it refers to things that, upon reflection, make sense.

“Unconscious bias refers to ‘distortions or biases in perspectives and perceptions that one is unaware of.’” (From “Diversity & Inclusion Management” by Arakane)

The phrase “distortions or biases in perspectives and perceptions that one is unaware of” is used here. According to the previously quoted checklist items, the term “unaware” means “not realizing that one’s conscious perspectives and perceptions are distorted or biased”. This also refers to things that, upon reflection, make sense.

In other words, both interpretations arrive at the following conclusion:

Unconscious bias is not about implicit stereotypes or implicit attitudes but about “not realizing that one’s conscious thoughts are biased”.

They use terms like “unconscious” or “unaware”, which are also used to explain “implicit”, but the final meaning differs from the original one.

File:Pieter Bruegel the Elder - The Tower of Babel (Vienna) - Google Art Project.jpg - Wikimedia Commons

Misuse in Japan: What is the Unconscious Survey?

 Implicit bias (unconscious bias) cannot be measured through simple questionnaires or checklists. However, many books and websites feature checklists for unconscious bias in Japan. What these checklists measure are explicit biases.

Let’s look at some representative examples.

Below is an excerpt from ‘Your Team’s Struggles Are Due to Unconscious Bias’ by Tomotaka Moriya (published on November 1, 2017), specifically the ‘Unconscious Bias Checklist Hidden in Your Actions’.

This book was one of the earliest in Japan to explain unconscious bias (implicit bias) as ‘無意識の思い込み’. As will be explained later, using the term ‘無意識の思い込み’ is not appropriate.

In “Unconscious Bias Management” (May 22, 2019) by Tomotaka Moriya, a checklist titled “Let’s Question Our Unconscious Biases - 7 Bias to Check” is included as follows:

In “Diversity & Inclusion Management” by Masako Arakane (published on May 29, 2020), it states, “In your workplace, do you observe the following behaviors?”

One of the references in Arakane’s book is Moriya’s work, “Unconscious Bias Management.”

In 2021, the Gender Equality Bureau of the Cabinet Office conducted a study titled “FY2021 Research on Unconscious Bias Based on Gender.” The study involved participants responding to various measurement items (02.pdf). Arakane participated as a member of the research review committee and supervised the “Unconscious Bias - Checklist” (PowerPoint プレゼンテーション).

This is a case where a consultant made it possible to identify unconscious bias using a checklist. Another consultant, who referred to this checklist, supervised the Cabinet Office’s survey, leading to its misuse as a national policy.

Are training sessions and seminars effective?

I will present a summary of the book ‘What Works: Gender Equality by Design’ by Iris Bohnet, the Albert Pratt Professor of Business and Government and co-director of the Women and Public Policy Program at Harvard Kennedy School.

Amazon.co.jp: What Works: Gender Equality by Design : Bohnet, Iris: Foreign Language Books

Few people consistently check their actions and attitudes with an ethical perspective, analyze their root causes, and remind themselves of corrective measures. Many corporate diversity training programs overlook this aspect and waste their budgets. One large-scale study on this topic, which reviewed nearly 1,000 research results, concluded that was "the death of evidence" supporting the effectiveness of such initiatives.

Conducting diversity training can sometimes have the opposite effect, as people may feel it serves as a moral license. There is an experiment involving smoking and multivitamins. In reality, everyone was given a placebo, but those who believed they were taking multivitamins smoked more and engaged less in exercise and healthy eating.

"At this point we have to conclude that diversity training either does not work or, at the very least, that we do not have enough evidence to know whether and under what conditions it does any good.  Given the billions of dollars being spent globally on diversity training, this should give many companies pause."

Opinions that challenge the effectiveness of training sessions and seminars have also emerged from Japan.

“Unfortunately, many current awareness-raising training books and corporate training programs for employees have not been validated for effectiveness with objective data. (…) It is often claimed that the training was effective based on participant surveys stating ‘It was effective’ or ‘I’m glad I attended.’ (…) It is necessary to always verify what kind of effect it had on whom and to proceed with ingenuity.”　(「職場で使えるジェンダー・ハラスメント対策ブック」)

As mentioned above, scholars have pointed out that the effectiveness of training sessions and seminars that are not scientifically validated cannot be objectively determined. Organizations that conduct such training sessions and seminars need to take this criticism seriously and make improvements if it applies to them.

Can we unlearn implicit biases (unconscious biases) ? with Prof. Banaji

An overview of the remarks by Professor Banaji, one of the proponents of implicit bias.

----

Mahzarin R. Banaji | Department of Psychology

Implicit bias is considered to be learned and therefore changeable. However, it is not easy; first, people need to convince themselves that they have biases. Concluding that "Oh, but I'll just tell myself not to be that way.” is incorrect.

Research by Calvin K. Lai et al. introduced interventions that reduce racial IAT scores. The most effective intervention was having participants imagine that someone from a group they held negative attitudes towards helped them, while someone from a group they held positive attitudes towards did not. The least effective was encouraging participants to become egalitarians.

However, the effects of these interventions did not last long. The society that strongly influences our implicit biases needs to change.

The IAT has been taken at least 40 million times since 2007. It analyzed biases against homosexuality, race, skin color, age, disability, and weight. Between 2007 and 2020, anti-homosexual bias decreased by 64%. The change was fastest among young people and self-identified liberals.

Why did anti-homosexual bias decrease significantly?

One reason could be that more people began to come out as homosexual to those close to them. This caused a conflict with religious norms, but affection for those who came out prevailed.

Hollywood’s involvement is another factor. The industry, with many homosexuals, created characters who were cool, smart, and kind.

Additionally, the Massachusetts Supreme Court was the first to declare the legalization of homosexuality.

Thus, addressing implicit bias may require measures at the individual, organizational or institutional, and governmental levels.

"So this is a very important lesson for us, that if we want to make change, maybe one of the messages from our research is that, try and do it at all three levels. And for that reason, I think we should be pleased that people in our society today use the word systemic so much more than we have. Systemic does not mean systematic, systemic means that the system needs to get engaged. And I would like to argue that the system consists of individual people, the system consists of institutions, the system consists of large governmental organizations that can move certain kinds of levers. I cannot say that one is more important than the other, but I would like to argue that if we go for system change, we will see change a lot faster."

----

In the above discussion, the part stating “the least effective was encouraging participants to become egalitarians” contains an important point related to the misuse of implicit bias (unconscious bias) in Japan, which will be discussed later. We will return to this topic again.

References:

https://www.apa.org/news/podcasts/speaking-of-psychology/implicit-biases　

https://elsevier-ssrn-document-store-rod.s3.amazonaws.com/16/09/10/ssrn_id2837171_code1859604.pdf