Everyday Bias. Howard J. Ross
same as having biases. In fact, qualifications are simply biases that we have agreed upon and codified. There are hundreds of examples of people who have performed in extraordinary ways who do not have the “normal” qualifications for their roles. If qualifications were the only measure of success, than college dropouts such as Steve Jobs, Bill Gates, and Mark Zuckerberg would still be unknown. However, understandably, we have determined that while there are occasional creative eccentrics like those three, it just doesn’t make good sense to look at 150 résumés and not take education into account. So we use biases against the lack of those characteristics to “filter out” certain people who we might have determined are not a good fit for the job. We do the same thing when we are in dangerous situations. For instance, we might be especially attentive to locking our car in a location with a higher crime rate.
All the same, it is important to note that we should be thoughtful and very conscious about how much we take these negative biases for granted. There are always exceptions, even to the most dependable of patterns (Jobs, Gates, and Zuckerberg, for example!). So, while using negative biases can be helpful, we should never assume they are absolute. The annals of sport are filled with examples of players who were “too small to be successful” by “normal” standards. Yet they were able to succeed far beyond expectations. The same can be said for constructive uses of biases for a particular kind of person (Q3 in figure 1.1). We often look for certain circumstances or people because we have a history with them that tells us we can be more assured that they will meet our needs. People who have certain college degrees, or went to a certain college; certain personality types that fit a particular job or situation. Language skills, or any number of other “qualifications” that we have determined might make the person a better fit for the job. Once again, having these filters can be very helpful, but we have to be careful that we don’t develop blind spots that stop us from seeing exceptional people or circumstances that are “exceptions to the rule.”
Finally, we also have to be mindful of the potentially destructive effects of these “positive” biases (Q4 in figure 1.1). This can show up in several different ways. For instance, we may place unrealistic expectations on somebody from a particular group because of a positive bias we have about “that sort of people.” I remember a Chinese student once telling me, “I’m so tired of people expecting me to be good at math and sciences because I’m Asian. It’s just not my thing. I like the social sciences more. But everybody, from my parents to my teachers seems to think I have to ‘try harder’ when my math grades aren’t straight As, even though I do really well in the courses that matter to me.”
Another way the potentially destructive effects of biases favoring a group or person can show up is when one person suffers because we have a positive bias toward somebody else. Imagine you are interviewing two candidates and something about one of them reminds you of your sister. You may not even realize it. It just occurs to you that “there is something about this person that I like.” As a result, you pay more attention to them, listen more carefully, and are even warmer toward them in the interview. The interview goes great and you want to hire the person. However, what may be lost in the “glow” of that positive bias is that the other candidate never had a fair shot because of the bias that you had in favor of the first person.
It would be great if we were totally conscious about every decision we made and never used bias. However, such a thought is not only unrealistic but impossible. Our processing would slow to a near halt. The key is to become more and more conscious about when our biases are serving our greater objectives.
We develop biases toward people and behaviors all throughout our lives. We learn that to relate in a particular way is “better” than another way, or that we prefer people who act or look a particular way. We can sometimes even develop patterns of behavior that work well enough for us in one domain that we unconscious and habitually use them in places where they do not work nearly as well.
As an example, on May 5, 2013, the Washington Post reported that:
After they leave military service, veterans of the two wars (Iraq and Afghanistan) have a 75 percent higher rate of fatal motor vehicle accidents than do civilians. Troops still in uniform have a higher risk of crashing their cars in the months immediately after returning from deployment than in the months immediately before. People who have had multiple tours in combat zones are at highest risk for traffic accidents.
This is obviously of great concern. The story went on to read:
The most common explanation is that troops bring back driving habits that were lifesaving in war zones but are dangerous on America’s roads. They include racing through intersections, straddling lanes, swerving on bridges and, for some, not wearing seat belts because they hinder a rapid escape.[9]
This is one of the great challenges we have when our biases are unconscious. Without realizing it, we can apply the same behavior, or evaluation criteria that worked in one domain, and find that they are not at all helpful, or even tragic in another.
Is There Only One Kind of Bias?
Is bias basically something we have or don’t have, or are there different kinds of biases? Amy Cuddy, at Harvard Business School; Susan Fiske at Princeton University; and Peter Glick, at Lawrence University in Appleton, Wisconsin, studied these distinctions and created a valuable map for looking at the way we process bias.[10]
Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick were able to identify two distinct forms of bias. The first is bias based on warmth. In their terms, “our warmth scales have included good-natured, trustworthy, tolerant, friendly, and sincere.”[11]
In short, do you consider the personal likable? Is it somebody you feel comfortable being around? On the other hand, the second form is bias based on competence, which they classify as “capable, skillful, intelligent, and confident.”[12] Looking at bias in this way can be very helpful. We may have inherent biases about groups of people, biases which are very strong, but are very different between the different groups. In extensive research, Cuddy, Fiske, and Glick found there were some groups people tended to respond to with a low degree of both warmth and competence (e.g., welfare recipients, homeless people, poor people, and Arabs). Others we may feel a high degree of warmth toward, but not see as very competent (e.g., the elderly and people with physical or mental disabilities). Still others we may see as very competent, but not feel very much warmth toward at all (e.g., Asians, rich people, and Jews). And finally, there are those for whom we feel a high level of warmth, and a high level of competence (e.g., housewives, Christians, middle class Americans).[13] How we feel about each of these groups might yield very different behaviors.
Warmth seems to be the primary dimension in terms of how we respond to people. We are more likely to first emotionally respond to whether or not we like someone, and only secondarily respond to whether or not we believe they are competent. Cuddy and her study associates suggest this results in more active facilitation. They wrote that “perceived warmth predicts active behaviors: groups judged as warm elicit active facilitation (i.e., help), whereas those judged as lacking warmth elicit active harm (i.e., attack).”[14]
They also reported that “the competence dimension, being secondary (because it assesses others’ capability to carry out intentions), predicts passive behaviors: groups judged as competent elicit passive facilitation (i.e., obligatory association, convenient cooperation), whereas those judged as lacking competence elicit passive harm (i.e., neglect, ignoring).”[15]
So the way the bias plays out may be very different, depending upon which dimension elicits a reaction from us. Consider whether you are dealing with somebody who is elderly, or has a physical disability, both types that tested in the high warmth, low competence dimension of the study. You may feel very warmly and loving toward them, but you may tend to treat them as being less competent than they are in reality.
Deb Dagit, Diversity Consultant and former Chief Diversity Officer
As a four-foot-tall woman who either walks with a cane or uses a wheelchair, it is not