For Allen and Webb, Implicit Biases Would Be Better Confronted

Sen. George Allen, left, and James Webb have denied biased remarks, but studies show bias is often unconscious. (By Kevin Wolf -- Associated Press)

At some point during the final debate tonight in the Virginia Senate race between Sen. George Allen (R) and James Webb (D), someone will probably bring up the "macaca" issue.

Questions about what Allen meant when he attached that word to an Indian American campaign worker for his opponent are what started an avalanche of charges of racism, sexism and anti-Semitism that have come to dominate an increasingly close race. While Allen has borne the brunt of charges of insensitivity, Webb has also come under fire for long-ago comments disparaging women.

For at least one Virginia voter, the controversy has been maddening. University of Virginia psychologist Brian Nosek welcomes a conversation about prejudice but finds the endless charges -- and the endless denials of bias -- infuriating.

A quiet revolution in experimental psychology over the past decade, led in part by a team to which Nosek belongs, has found that this kind of conversation entirely misses the point.

"It would be no surprise that these two gentlemen have implicit biases -- they are human like the rest of us," Nosek said. "What I would love to see in politicians is an acknowledgment that says, 'Of course I have implicit biases, and this is what I am going to do about them.' "

Much of the problem seems to lie in how we conceptualize prejudice. Although hundreds of experimental studies show that bias is often unthinking or even unconscious, we have a deeply ingrained notion that people are biased because they want to be biased. We believe prejudice stems from conscious beliefs, and that bias is proof of bad intentions. We believe good intentions are all it takes to eliminate prejudice.

This is why, in repeated apologies, Allen has said he meant no offense when he tossed out the word "macaca" during a campaign rally. The target, Webb's staffer, S.R. Sidarth, was one of the few people of color in the audience.

"If I had any idea that in some parts of the world or some cultures that this would be an insult, I would never have used that word because that's not who I am," Allen has said. "It's not how I was raised. It's not what I believe in."

Webb has similarly disowned his remark about women. Both men have said that although they may once have held some biases, they have grown and changed. Both, however, have used the other's comments to political advantage.

One good reason not to throw stones when it comes to racism and sexism, psychologists say, is that studies show that most of us live in glass houses.

This is true even though hardly anyone nowadays openly admits to prejudice. But is that because bias has been eliminated or because the idea of being prejudiced has become so dirty? Cleverly designed studies show that it is the latter.

When people are deprived of conscious self-control in the studies, large numbers of Americans show automatic biases that can be picked up by brain imaging or by the startle reflex, as measured by blinking. Brain imaging studies show that when volunteers see photographs drawn from college yearbooks, black faces often trigger a larger response in the amygdala, which is involved in the regulation of fear.

But you don't need complicated machinery. One experiment found that when volunteers in a group were confronted with an emergency situation, 75 percent came to the help of a white victim, but only 38 percent came to the aid of a black victim. Confronted by the results, people denied that racial bias had anything to do with it.

Were they all lying? Some people do harbor deliberate prejudice, but it appears that most people are sincere in believing they are not biased.

Another tool developed by Nosek and others detects unthinking bias by measuring the speed of people's mental associations. Millions have taken the Implicit Association Test. Large majorities of Americans, including people of color and other minorities, show a variety of biases they believe they do not have.

The tests are available for free on the Harvard Web site. Would it be tempting to ask Allen and Webb to publicly take some tests, in lieu of the endless charges and denials?

Harvard psychologist Mahzarin Banaji, who helped develop the tests, emphatically said this would be a bad idea.

Although the tests may indeed reveal something in each man's mind that he is not aware of, Banaji and Nosek said it was a poor measure of which man would make the better senator. Far better, they said, for the candidates to take the anonymous tests in privacy.

That is because when it comes to bias, it seems to be less important how biased you are, and more important how willing you are to confront your unconscious brain, Banaji and Nosek said. A candidate who acknowledges the power of unconscious bias and makes plans to confront it, they say, may make a better leader than the one who denies such bias exists.