Appellate Advocacy Blog

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy: Tying it All Together

Tying it all Together

Understanding neurodivergence is important if we are going to succeed as advocates. When we deal with colleagues and clients, when we mentor or teach students and associates, and even as we draft our briefs and make our arguments, we must recognize that we are dealing with people who may process information and think differently than we do. And we should be ok with that.

Even as a neurodivergent person myself, growing up dyslexic, this isn’t always easy for me to do. I fumble a bit even with my own family. 

My daughter (who gave me permission to share) is clearly intelligent. I have always had high expectations for her. When she entered middle school, her grades began to suffer and she was obviously unhappy. I couldn’t understand what had changed, and I made moral judgments about her work ethics. She was underperforming (a classic sign of neurodivergence) and clearly just needed to work harder.

Recently, she was diagnosed with ADD and level 1 autism. And as I dug into the research I’ve shared, I came to understand that her issues weren’t with laziness, but with attention, overstimulation, and organization. And that as these were addressed, and her strengths were recognized and grown, she could thrive.

You, your students, or your associates can too. It starts with awareness. Then we need to take action. But what if we are not given a diagnosis?

Disclosure 

At younger stages, it’s the responsibility of school administrators to make sure children with learning disabilities are assessed and identified, regardless of their desire for confidentiality. At college and in the workplace, it’s completely up to the individual to self-identify. As a result, over 94% of high school students with learning disabilities receive assistance, while just 17% of college students receive access to the same services. 

At work, accommodations are required when disabilities are disclosed. But again, there is a stigma to that disclosure. Studies show that persons with disclosed disabilities tend to make less than those who do not disclose. And by the time attorneys, in particular, enter the workforce, they likely have self-accommodated in many ways, and are hesitant to disclose any disability.

Fortunately, the current model of disclosure and accommodations isn’t the only way to address neurodivergence. We can, instead, modify the environment for students and attorneys alike in ways that work better for everyone using a model known as universal design.

Universal Design for Neurodivergent Success

Universal design started as an architectural concept. What if the physical environment people learned and worked in was more usable for everyone? Then the space would not need to be modified for a particular disability, and all users would find it accessible.

To do so, several objectives must be met:

1. all users must find the product or space useful;
2. the space should be flexible to accommodate differences (i.e., not just right hand desks but rather ambidextrous desks);
3. the facility must be simple and intuitive to use;
4. information must be perceptible to everyone;
5. there should be a high tolerance of error to minimize harm from accidents;
6. using the environment should require low physical effort; and,
7. there should be adequate size and space for all bodies to navigate.

Applying some of the lessons we’ve learned from looking at the strengths and weaknesses of ADD, dyslexia, and autism, there are several universal design considerations to make learning and working more successful. Noise should be reduced. Lighting should not be too harsh. Colors should be muted. Privacy should be given. Hours should be flexible. Working from home should be considered as an option.

Most of these environmental adjustments are good for everyone.  

Over half of high performing employees say their environments are too distracting. These changes largely help to reduce distraction and enhance productivity for everyone.

In academics, the two most common accommodations requested regardless of diagnosis are longer times for testing and a quiet place for that testing. These accommodations are relatively inexpensive, and if applied within the larger classroom setting, there would be no need for many students to self-identify. All would benefit.

Universal design also applies to teaching. Multiple teaching modalities help everyone. While most of us older lawyers learned audibly, through lectures, our new generation of students and associates are much more visual. They have learned to learn on the internet with videos and graphics. So using slides, videos, and electronically accessible information textually helps everyone.

This access to software and internet resources is particularly important for those with disabilities. If your information is accessible on the internet, they can use their own accommodation software, like readers, to better use that information. Allowing access to grammar and spellchecking features is particularly important for those with dyslexia. And scheduling and calendaring software (and training) is useful for everyone, but particularly those with executive function issues.

Finally, these tips from Haley Moss (in her book Great Minds Think Differently: Neurodiversity for Lawyers and Other Professionals (2010)) on managing a neurodiverse practice are useful for any classroom or firm: 

1. Believe when someone tells you something is difficult
2. Be considerate of sensory processing differences
3. Set clear timelines and deadlines and avoid surprises
4. Use different communication methods
5. Check in and encourage feedback, encourage breaks

Closing Thoughts

Hopefully, if you have followed this series of blogs, you have been encouraged to make your office, firm, or classroom more inviting for the neurodiverse. Recognizing that there are strengths alongside weaknesses, that numerous accommodations exist, and that there are strategies for helping the neurodiverse thrive is a big first step. Applying general principles of universal design will help make your practice, office, or classroom more equitable. And as more people become comfortable with disclosing -- perhaps in response to making these changes -- more custom-tailored accommodations can be developed, so that everyone can thrive, no matter how differently they think.

All prior posts with suggested readings:

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy - Introduction

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy - Dyslexia

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy - Autism

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy - ADD/ADHD

 

(Photo attribute: Bill Sanderson, 1997. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY 4.0)

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy: Autism

Introduction

The final form of neurodiversity I will address individually is autism. Autism is a complex neurological condition that manifests in different ways. It often includes differences in social communication and interaction, sensory processing, intense passions or interests, and repetitive behavior. About 2.2% of American adults are on the autistic spectrum.

Haley Moss is an attorney who was diagnosed with autism as a child. Here is how she describes her experience:

I was a late talker. I did not speak until I was four years old, and the language I did use was echolalic - often repeating words and phrases my parents used originally heard from cartoons or movies. I regularly stim in order to feel less nervous or to feel a form of sensory input, whether it is twirling my hair, fidgeting, or flapping my hands as form of full body joy when I am so excited, I cannot keep it to myself.

My special interests have changed over the years. While everyone has hobbies or topics that they find enjoyable or fascinating, with autism, it is often the depth of the knowledge that separates the interests from neurotypical pleasure. As a little kid, I was once all-knowing about Ancient Egypt before having an all-encompassing knowledge of the Harry Potter books and movies, to an encyclopedic-level knowledge of Lilly Pulitzer prints and patterns. I would go so far as to say that in law and legal practice, having one particular niche area of practice you enjoy is incredibly similar to an autistic special interest (writing and taking about disability law, the Americans with Disability Act [ADA], and neurodiversity, for instance, surely feels that way for me!).

The executive functions prove to be the most difficult for me, along with social interactions. Sometimes I get so engrossed in a task or something I am passionate about that I forget what time it is or what else to prioritize. I make a lot of lists to make sure the most important things get done. Socially, I will miss the sarcastic joke or put forth double the effort into networking and friendships because it can feel unnatural or far more difficult than it may be for a neurotypical person.

Haley Moss, Great Minds Think Differently: Neurodiversity for Lawyers and Other Professionals 16 (2021)

Strengths

As with other types of neurodiversity, a strengths-based approach to autism helps identify how this different way of thinking can strengthen a practice or legal career, and helps educators focus on leveraging those strengths for their students. The following are some of the strengths identified in those with autism.

• Attention to detail
  Autistic people can enter states of tunnel vision or extreme focus, which, coupled with a strong attention to detail, can lead them to excel at detail-oriented work, including document review, spreadsheet analysis, and similar tasks.
  
  
• Memory
  Many people with autism have excellent focused memory systems, leading to expertise in subject areas and strong recall.
  
  
• Problem solving
  According to some studies, autistic people are up to 40% faster at problem solving, and less likely to be swayed by emotional impact when making decisions.
  
  
• Strong work ethic
  Because of strengths in focus and problem solving, many employers say that autistic employees demonstrate a strong work ethic and satisfaction with tasks, including repetitive tasks.

Weaknesses

As with with forms of neurodiversity, there are attendant weaknesses that are common in people with autism. These weaknesses can be managed and accommodated in various ways.

• Social cue interpretation and display
  Autistic people often have a difficulty in reading emotions, and often are perceived to be emotionless or “flat” by neurotypical people. Awareness of this potential difficulty can prevent misunderstanding.
  
  
• Rigid thinking
  Many autistic people do not respond well to change, and this includes thinking outside of one’s own internal system of thought. Preventing last-minute surprises and change can be very helpful to someone with autism in the workplace. Scheduling events and calendaring deadlines with "tickler" dates to avoid surprises can be very helpful.
  
  
• Self stimulation
  Self-stimulation, or stimming, is a coping mechanism by some people with autism, where they engage in some sort of repetitive physical activity to lessen their anxiety. As Haley Moss describes her own hair twirling or hand movements, it is common for those with autism to use physical movement in ways that can seem distracting. While those with autism may be self-accommodating or undergoing behavioral therapy, cutting down the noise and distraction of work environments is also helpful to avoid the stressors that can lead to the behavior.
  
  
• Compulsions and obsessions
  Many autistic people have intense focus, sometimes resulting in an obsession with a particular subject or object. Setting timers or otherwise blocking out time for projects can help cut short focus on one thing when others must be addressed.
  
  
• Sensory overload
  Many autistic people have difficulty filtering out sensory data. As a result, they have to process all of that information, leading to sensory shutdown or meltdowns. Again, a quiet work environment, without harsh lighting or persistent noise, can be very helpful.
  
  
• Executive functioning
  Many autistic people have difficulty in accomplishing complex tasks when given to them as a block. Some may focus on certain details and miss the big picture. Others may have difficulty in organizing thoughts or paying attention to a given task. Assigning projects in steps rather than as an entire finished product can be extremely helpful.

Adaptations and accommodations

My next entry will answer the "so what now?" question some of you may have. You have been introduced to the concept of neurodiversity and you have some familiarity with the strengths-based approach to leveraging and coping with the strengths of weaknesses of dyslexia, ADD, and autism. But not every student or associate will disclose their particular neurodiversity, and many remain undiagnosed. Fortunately, there are best practices to employ in the classroom and workplace to help those with neurodiversity maximize their potential, and those practices are good for those who are neurotypical, as well. More on that next time.

Further Reading:

https://embrace-autism.com

Haley Moss, Great Minds Think Differently: Neurodiversity for Lawyers and Other Professionals (2021)

(photo attribute: Bill Sanderson, 1997. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY 4.0)

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy: ADD

I.     Introduction

Attention Deficit Disorder is another type of neurodivergence, or different way of thinking and processing, that impacts a large segment of the population. About 8% of the population has ADD. But according to one study, over 12% of attorneys have ADD.

For years, ADD was primarily referred to as hyperactivity. It was seen as a moral problem - a failure to focus - until recent advancement have shown that it is another heritable series of traits that leads to a different way of thinking, with manageable deficiencies and valuable strengths.

II.     Strengths

Bob Lobel is a legendary sports personality in Boston. He is known for his integrity, his ability to ad-lib, and his creativity. He attributes these strengths to his ADD.

“What makes me unique come straight from my ADD. I’m like the cut up in sixth grade. I thrive on chaos. I love to ad-lib. I think outside the box. Geez, I can’t think inside the box. I can change leads three seconds before airtime and make up the copy as we go on the air. This is just who I am. It comes naturally to me. That’s why I think of ADD as a gift, not as a liability.”

Edward M Hallowell, M.D. and John J. Ratey, M.D., Delivered from Distraction - Getting the Most out of Life with Attention Deficit Disorder 30 (2005).

Many attributes of people with ADD are gifts. Helping them see and nurture those gifts is key to helping them thrive in their practice.

    A.    Creativity
Whether because of their divergent interests, or simply because they see things differently, people with ADD are often creative in their approaches to life. As problem solvers, they tend to be holistic, and often think outside of the box. They also tend to think quickly.

    B.    Charisma
People with ADD are often described as being charismatic. They are empathetic, because they have had to deal with their own struggles, and tend to approach life with a sense of humor. When they focus on a person, that person knows they are being seen. And their energy and creative approach to life can be contagious.

    C.    Energy
Many, but not all, of those with ADD have a strong sense of energy that they have learned to harness over the years. This energy can be motivation and inspirational in a team setting, and certainly valuable in long trials and other legal efforts. In fact, many people with ADD consider themselves to do better when under pressure. They thrive on the chaos that so often arises in our legal practices.

    D.    Focus
When a person with ADD gets into a focused “flow” state, it is hard to shake it. Many successful scientists, writers, artists, and attorneys with ADD attribute their success to their ability to enter into a state of flow for hours on end. In fact, lawyers with ADD often say one of their strengths is the ability to focus on their work under extreme pressure.

    E.    Tenacity
By the time a person with ADD has their law degree, they have overcome a great deal of adversity. They have developed grit. And they are unlikely to experience serious setbacks the next time they encounter difficulty.

III.    Weaknesses

For most of history, the primary effects of ADD - distractability, impulsivity, and restlessness - were seen as moral failings. As science progressed, it was discovered that ADD was a heritable trait, with physiological differences in certain regions of the brain that caused these issues. If you have a student or coworker with ADD, just telling them to “buckle down and pay attention” probably won’t work. They physically may not be able to do so. But they can learn coping mechanisms and structure.

By the time someone with ADD reaches law school, they likely have a successful suite of coping skills. But law school poses a unique challenge. There are few places where focus and discipline are more valued, and certain addictions more fostered, than in law school and the legal academy in general. And often, students and new lawyers have been plucked from their social safety nets to be placed into that environment.

One of the primary things those students need is the structure that a mentor, or group of similarly neurodivergent peers, can bring. Structure, accountability, and encouragement are important for everyone, but particularly those with ADD. Providing that in some way is vital.

In addition to providing that social support, the following are some areas of difficulty that those with ADD have found successful ways to manage.

    A.     Distractability
“Attention Deficit Disorder” is something of a misnomer. There isn’t so much a “deficit” of attention as a surplus that is spread a bit too thin. Coping with that surplus can take many forms.

First, good health can reduce distractability. Adequate sleep, daily exercise, and a good diet have all been shown to improve focus for those with ADD. Some supplements (like Omega 3 fatty acids) have been suggested to help as well. These all require structure, planning, and likely some encouragement. But it is worth the effort.

Many people with ADD benefit from medication. However, 20-30% of those with ADD say medication does not help. And there have been recent shortages in some medications, like Adderall. As a result, when, what, and how to take medication is a highly personal choice for those with ADD.

There are practical structural steps to take as well. ADD law students on Reddit recommend maximizing your word-processing screen so you won’t be tempted by other apps, or even just taking handwritten notes to escape electronics entirely. Some even try to turn each case into a full narrative, or illustrate the margins, just to keep themselves engaged.

    B.    Impulsivity
It can be difficult for a person with ADD to resist certain impulses. This includes addictions already dangerous to our profession, like drugs and alcohol. But it can also result in risk-taking and other damaging activities as they seek to scratch an itch they can't seem to identify.

Some people with ADD may also have a condition known as Reward Deficiency Syndrome. Regular dopamine release just doesn’t quite produce the same feeling of satisfaction or pleasure for people with RDS. As a result, they are more prone to addiction and risk-taking. Diagnosis of that condition can lead to important coping skills and training, and awareness of that potential susceptibility can make it easier to confront.

    C.    Restlessness
When your mind wants to focus on everything, it can be hard to maintain focus on one thing at a time. In men more than women, this can manifest in hyperactivity. In women it can instead appear as “zoning out.”

The opposite side of this coin is hyper focus, or “flow.” There are time when a person with ADD is so engaged that everything else disappears and time seems to stand still. But of course, it doesn’t. And so the flow state can be equally problematic if not managed, leading to the neglect of other important things.

    D.     Time management
ADD makes time management difficult. This is particularly true in the law, where you need to be sure you have read through and analyzed every detail in a given case or exam question. Law students with ADD recommend seeking accommodations for extra time on exams for this reason. They must read the questions several times to catch all the details, then outline and structure the answers carefully to address them all. Then, at the end, they need time to edit out the rabbit trails.

Similarly, law students with ADD stress the need to set early deadlines. In other words, if a paper is due December 1, and that is the only deadline, there is a strong temptation to wait until November 30th to start. So setting earlier deadlines for research completion, first draft, and final edits, for instance, is key.

The same holds true in practice. Deadlines are best broken down and set at earlier increments than what is imposed by the court. And extra time and attention to reading, organizing, and editing is essential.

To help, many students and attorneys with ADD recommend apps. There are free and paid apps that help with scheduling and reminders. The “pomodoro” technique of setting timers for tasks, followed by set breaks, is often helpful, and can be managed with apps.

    E.    Organization
ADD and organization are not friends. Messy desks, disjointed writing, and scattered schedules are fairly common. So purposeful organization is important.

Many lawyers with ADD recommend apps for assistance with organization. As with time management, there are free and paid apps to assist with organization and to keep you on target.

    F.   Emotional Tolls
Being labeled an underachiever with moral failings rather than a different way of thinking takes a toll on many people with ADHD. While they have accomplished much by the time they reach law school, or get their law license, they may be saddled with a great deal of insecurity or fear of criticism.

Perhaps one of the most important things a professor, mentor, or law partner can do is encourage their student or employee with ADD. Acknowledge and see their strengths and weaknesses, help them with time management and organization and focus, and see them thrive.

Additional Reading:

Edward M Hallowell, M.D. and John J. Ratey, M.D., Delivered from Distraction - Getting the Most out of Life with Attention Deficit Disorder (2005).

AdditudeMag.com

(Photo attribute: Bill Sanderson, 1997. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY 4.0)

Neurodiversity and Legal Advocacy: Dyslexia

This is part two of my continuing series of posts about neurodiversity and legal advocacy. In today's post, I'll talk about my own neurodiversity - dyslexia. While each type of neurodiversity presents differently, I hope some of my personal experience and research can help you as either a teacher, partner, or mentor when you encounter dyslexic students or associates. If you are dyslexic yourself, the following may help you process your differences and see how they can be turned into strengths.

Studies estimate that from 10-20% of the population has dyslexia. Dyslexia involves a series of genetic, neurological differences that result in a different way of seeing the world. Given the prevalence of dyslexia, it is likely that you have taught or work with dyslexic thinkers.

1.    Strengths

Although traditionally seen as a disability, Richard Branson considers dyslexia to be his superpower, and several companies now hire dyslexic thinkers purposefully because of their strengths. Indeed, LinkedIn now includes "dyslexic thinking" as a skill. Those strengths include:

    A.     Big Picture Thinking

Most dyslexics see themselves as "big picture thinkers." They see trends and patterns in data more quickly than neurotypicals. This permits them to see how things connect in complex systems, categorize broadly based on similarities, and, conversely, quickly spot things that are out of place. The GCHQ, a British intelligence and security agency, employs over 100 dyslexic thinkers to assist in their analysis for this reason.

    B.     Problem Solving

Dyslexics tend to score very high in reasoning skills. Their big-picture view of the world helps them understand patterns and systems quickly, and they can then simplify those complex systems. They are logical and strategic thinkers. In the legal world, this means dyslexics may be able to see legal solutions based on prior precedent a bit more clearly -- once they understand the purpose and policy behind prior precedent, they can extrapolate it to newer areas quickly.

    C.     Creativity

Picasso, Pollack, Spielberg, Einstein and Roald Dahl were all dyslexic thinkers. That doesn't mean all dyslexics are artists, but most do see the world a bit differently, and process and explore it differently as well.

    D.     Empathy

Whether a function of their "big picture" thinking, their experiences in coping with difficulties in reading and writing, or both, dyslexic thinkers score high in empathy. They typically sense, understand, and respond to other people's feelings more quickly and accurately than neurotypical people.

    E.     Spatial Reasoning

When dyslexic children learn to read, the right hemisphere of their brain lights up on MRIs. Neurotypical children usually do not have the same response. This is hypothesized to be because the dyslexic brain tends to use spatial reasoning for everything, including reading. Rather than just hearing and assigning sounds to letters, the dyslexic child seems to create patterns and "shapes" for each word. This spatial reasoning persists in dyslexic thinking, with dyslexics often scoring highly on spatial reasoning and 3D imagination. This may be why they can be strong theoretical mathematicians, but still make sequential errors (they see the forests but miss the trees).

    F.     Communication

When these strengths are combined, they can make dyslexics excellent communicators. Big-picture thinking, empathy, and creativity mean that dyslexics can be strong narrative story-tellers. And Walter Fisher's narrative paradigm of communications suggests that this makes them more persuasive.

2.     Challenges and coping mechanisms

Of course, being dyslexic isn't always wonderful. Dyslexia was categorized as a disability for a reason - it carries with it significant challenges. People with dyslexia are sometimes described as being neurologically "spiky," with scores both higher and lower than the neurotypical (as that name would suggest). While building on the strengths listed above, the dyslexic thinker needs to recognize those challenges. Fortunately, there are numerous aids in helping them do so.

    A.     Organization.

Big picture thinkers need to learn to break things down into steps. While it is useful to see the forest, the trees still matter in the law. Brian Garner's "madman, architect, carpenter, judge" process is extremely helpful to me. I love the exploration of research (another dyslexic trait) but feel constrained by early organization. Using Garner's process, I naturally compose my big picture argument, use the law I find to create structure, then build and rebuild the argument.

    B.     Spelling and Grammar.

Spelling and grammar are most dyslexic thinkers' kryptonite. Yet most rubrics weigh them heavily, both because they matter and because they are easy to grade. This frankly inequitable bias has to be addressed, because it will impact them professionally. But it can't paralyze the writer.

I once had the privilege of spending an evening talking with Ray Bradbury. His primary writing advice? "Write the damn thing!" Dyslexics need to get a draft on paper without fear of failure. That may mean speech to text software. It may mean cut and pasting blocks of text from cases first, then revising later. But getting something on the page is what matters.

Then revise, revise, revise. Word has learning tools that are thoroughly explored in the website listed below. AI could also be used to help. But the main emphasis for a dyslexic writer should be that good writing is rewriting, even for neurotypical writers, but especially for dyslexic writers. A second set of eyes is also highly recommended. My wife, a history professor, reads almost everything I write. Including these blogs. If you aren't blessed with a wife with good grammar skills and the patience of Job, you probably have a paralegal, legal secretary, or co-worker who does.

    C.     Instructions.

Because dyslexics are big-picture thinkers, and because they often have some decoding lag-time, giving them instructions can be tricky. Rather than just telling students to "write a memo," the dyslexic student may need the necessary steps broken down for them. And they benefit greatly from iterative learning - letting them edit and rewrite assignments is a huge boost both in learning and emotional impact.

    D.    Short-Term and Working Memory.

Several studies have shown that dyslexic thinkers can have difficulty with both short-term and working memory. Working memory is a subset of short-term memory that involves remembering sequential steps, planning, and behavioral related decision making. We forget our keys and people's names and phone numbers with alarming regularity.

One of my coping mechanisms is to write things down immediately. If I am researching and have a thought, I write it down quickly. If I have a text or notification come through, it will probably disappear if I do not. I do the same at oral argument - I furiously write down questions and statements that I need to address and draw arrows and write numbers to organize them. Once I have done that, I am locked in, because I can visualize the new argument.

There are several strategies to look into: color association, chunking, visualization, and mnemonics are all useful. As is technology. Calendaring and note apps are a part of everyday life for me and most dyslexics.

    E.     Managing Emotional Impact.

Being a dyslexic student, or advocate, isn't easy. Issues with memory, organization, and difficulty grasping instructions quickly are all anxiety-inducing. Reading -- a huge part of our day -- is draining because of the additional decoding that must take place. Text-to-speech readers may be helpful. Extra time accommodations aren't necessarily an advantage to such students, so much as a way to help level the field. But making sure their strengths are valued is also key. Hopefully, a strength-based approach to your interactions with these students will help them see the value in their differences.

3.     Conclusion

Dyslexia makes me a better advocate, but only because I've learned to capitalize on its strengths and cope with its weaknesses. Hopefully you can help your students, associates, or yourself do the same by following some of these tips.

 

Further Reading

Made by Dyslexia - Website with tests, instructional videos, and teaching tools

Taylor, H and Vestergaard MD: 'Developmental Dyslexia: Disorder or Specialization in Exploration?' Frontiers in Psychology (June 2022).

 

(Photo attribute: Bill Sanderson, 1997. Credit: Wellcome Collection. CC BY 4.0)

Implicit Bias Challenged, If Not Debunked

In recent years, the concept of implicit bias – the belief that all individuals harbor unconscious biases that affect their choices and actions – has been embraced by many law schools and the American Bar Association. In fact, the ABA passed a resolution requiring law schools to provide some type of bias training. But there is one problem – implicit bias research is deeply flawed and, in fact, so flawed that its validity is now in question.[1] Below is a summary of the flaws in implicit bias theory.

1.    The Implicit Association Test (IAT) is deeply flawed.

The IAT, developed by researchers at Harvard University, purports to measure an individual's implicit biases. The problem is that there is little, if any, evidence that IAT scores actually measure unconscious bias. As one scholar states:

The IAT is impacted by explicit attitudes, not just implicit attitudes, . . . It is impacted by people’s ability to process information quickly on a general level. It is impacted by desires to want to create a good impression. It is impacted by the mood people are in. If the measure is an amalgamation of many things (one of which is purportedly implicit bias), how can we know which of those things is responsible for a (weak) correlation with behavior?[2]

Furthermore, individuals who take the IAT are likely to achieve different scores if they take the IAT multiple times.[3] One commentator explains as follows:

The IAT, it turns out, has serious issues on both the reliability and validity fronts, which is surprising given its popularity and the very exciting claims that have been made about its potential to address racism” … That’s what the research says, at least, and it raises serious questions about how the IAT became such a social-science darling in the first place.[4]

Indeed, “much murkiness surrounds (a) the proper causal explanation for alleged IAT effects, (b) the psychological meaning of IAT scores, [and] (c) the statistical generality and potency of alleged relations between IAT scores and actual behavior.”[5] To be sure, Tony Greenwald, who co-created the IAT, acknowledged that the IAT should not be used to predict biased behavior, stating that the IAT is only “good for predicting individual behavior in the aggregate, and the correlations are small.”[6] Put simply, the “IAT provides little insight into who will discriminate against whom, and provides no more insight than explicit measures of bias.”[7]

2.    There is insufficient evidence that implicit bias – or results on the IAT – predicts biased behavior.

Empirical studies suggest that implicit biases do not necessarily cause biased behavior. As one commentator explains:

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Harvard, and the University of Virginia examined 499 studies over 20 years involving 80,859 participants that used the IAT and other, similar measures. They discovered two things: One is that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior appears weaker than previously thought. They also conclude that there is very little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes in a person’s behavior. These findings, they write, ‘produce a challenge for this area of research.’[8]

Importantly, these researchers examined “63 studies that explicitly considered a link between changes in bias and changes in actions . . . [but] they found no evidence of a causal relationship.”[9]

3.    There is no way to quantify the impact of implicit bias on biased behavior, particularly given the presence of explicit          biases.

Assuming arguendo that implicit bias exists, there is no reliable way to quantify its relationship to biased behavior, if such a relationship even exists. For example, how can one distinguish between explicit and implicit biases? And how can scholars quantify or measure the impact of implicit biases when explicit bias has a demonstrable relationship to biased behavior?

These and other issues have led some scholars to question the validity of implicit bias as a predictor of biased behavior: As one scholar states:

Almost everything about implicit bias is controversial in scientific circles. It is not clear, for instance, what most implicit bias methods actually measure; their ability to predict discrimination is modest at best; their reliability is low; early claims about their power and immutability have proven unjustified.[10]

Resolving these issues in an intellectually honest manner is critical to determining whether implicit bias bears any relationship to biased behavior.

 4.    Implicit bias training is ineffective.

Not surprisingly, implicit bias training is not effective in reducing biased behavior. For example, a study in the United Kingdom concluded as follows:

[A] 2017 meta-analysis of 494 previous studies of racial sensitivity training programmes found that ‘changes in measured implicit bias are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit bias or behaviour’. The Equality and Human Rights Commission published its findings in 2018, stating that ‘the evidence for [unconscious bias training’s] ability effectively to change behaviour is limited’ and that it may cause a ‘backfiring’ effect, actually making people more biased. And last year the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development (the UK’s main HR professional body) said ‘unconscious bias training has no sustained impact on behaviour’.[11] 

Indeed, “while implicit bias trainings are multiplying, few rigorous evaluations of these programs exist,” the fact remains that “to date, none of these interventions has been shown to result in permanent, long-term reductions of implicit bias scores or, more importantly, sustained and meaningful changes in behavior (i.e., narrowing of racial/ethnic clinical treatment disparities."[12]

Of course, these facts have not stopped the American Bar Association from requiring law schools to conduct training on implicit bias, a proposal that was rightfully met with resistance from established scholars.[13] Perhaps this is because most law faculties are so overwhelmingly liberal that groupthink, rather than critical thinking, precludes a principled assessment of implicit bias’s validity.[14]

Without such an assessment, claims that implicit biases impact biased behavior will continue to lack empirical support. As such, the efficacy of implicit bias training remains dubious.[15]

Ultimately, eradicating bias and discrimination from all facets of society is a legal and moral imperative, but scholars should question seriously whether a focus on alleged implicit biases is an effective way of doing so. And in so doing, scholars should be committed to intellectual honesty to ensure that their own biases do not influence their findings.

 

[1] Lee Jussim, 12 Reasons to be Skeptical of Common Claims About Implicit Bias (March 28, 2022), available at: 12 Reasons to Be Skeptical of Common Claims About Implicit Bias | Psychology Today

[2] See Adam Lamparello, The Flaws of Implicit Bias and the Need for Empirical Research in Legal Scholarship and in Legal Education, available at: The Flaws of Implicit Bias -- and the Need for Empirical Research in Legal Scholarship and in Legal Education by Adam Lamparello :: SSRN.

[3] See The Spectator, The Dangers of Unconscious Bias Training (Aug. 15, 2020), available at: The dangers of unconscious bias training | The Spectator

[4]  Harvard Embraces Debunked ‘Implicit Bias’ Test that Labels You a Racist, (Jan. 22, 2020), available at: Harvard Embraces Debunked 'Implicit Bias' Test that Labels You a Racist (mixedtimes.com)

[5] German Lopez, For Years, This Popular Test Measured Anyone’s Racial Bias. But It Might Not Work After All, VOX (Mar. 7, 2017, 7:30 AM), https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-testracism (quoting New York University Professor James Jaccard).

[6] Id.

[7] Tom Bartlett, Can We Really Measure Implicit Bias? Maybe Not, CHRON. OF HIGHER EDUC. (Jan. 5, 2017), https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807.

[8] Id.

[9] Brandie Jefferson, Change the Bias, Change the Behavior? Maybe Not, WASH. UNIV. IN ST. LOUIS NEWSROOM (Aug. 1, 2019), https://source.wustl.edu/2019/08/change-the-bias-change-the-behavior-maybe-not/

[10] Lee Jussim, Mandatory Implicit Bias Training Is a Bad Idea, PSYCH. TODAY (Dec. 2, 2017), https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201712/mandatory-implicit-bias-training-is-bad-idea.

[11] Lewis Feilder, The Dangers of Unconscious Bias Training (Aug. 15, 2020), available at: The dangers of unconscious bias training | The Spectator

[12] See Tiffany L. Green & Nao Hagiwara, The Problem with Implicit Bias Training Aug. 28, 2020), available at: The Problem with Implicit Bias Training - Scientific American

[13] See, e.g., Karen Sloan, U.S. Law Students to Receive Anti-Bias Training After ABA Passes New Rule (February 14, 2022), available at:   U.S. law students to receive anti-bias training after ABA passes new rule | Reuters

[14] See Michael Conklin, Political Ideology and Law School Rankings: Measuring the Conservative Penalty and Liberal Bonus, 2020 U. Ill. L. Rev. Online 178, 179 (2020) As Professor Conklin explains:

It was not until 2015 that a robust analysis of law school ideological diversity was published (hereinafter “2015 study”). Before this, it was already well known that law school professors were disproportionately liberal—both when compared to the public at large and when compared to the overall legal profession. A study using 2013 data found that only 11% of law school professors were Republicans, compared to 82% who were Democrats. Not only do conservatives find it difficult to gain admittance into legal academia, but those who do find that they are effectively barred from the more prestigious topics, such as constitutional law and federal courts, and are instead relegated to topics such as law and economics.

[15] See Green and Hagiwara, supra note 12.

Guest Post: Drug Courts: A Well-Intended but Misguided Approach to Treating Drug Addiction

This post was written by Daria Brown, a graduating senior at Georgia College and State University and the President of Georgia College's Mock Trial team. Daria will begin her first year of law school in the fall of 2022.

     Addicts don’t belong in prison. And drug courts are not a proper solution. 

     In recent years, drug courts have proliferated in many states as an alternative to incarceration for low-level drug offenders. Ostensibly predicated on a rehabilitative rather than punitive paradigm, drug courts strive to provide low-level drug offenders with treatment in lieu of incarceration. 

     But upon closer examination, drug courts aren’t the solution. In fact, they are part of the problem because they retain a punitive approach to treating drug offenders and perpetuate precisely the type of moral blameworthiness—and lack of empathy—that often plagues those who struggle with addiction, and makes it difficult, if not impossible, for such individuals to lead fully recovered lives. 

     This article proposes a new approach that advocates for a truly rehabilitative, rather than retributive model, and that attempts to replace condemnation with compassion.

     By way of background, as a response to the overwhelming number of arrests for minor drug law violations in the 1980s and 1990s, drug courts were created to serve as an alternative correctional -- and rehabilitative -- approach for defendants charged with low-level drug crimes, such as possession of marijuana. And these courts have experienced some degree of success, as many individuals -- who would have otherwise been incarcerated -- have recovered from their addictions and proceeded to live productive lives. 

     The truth, however, is that these stories are the exception, not the rule. And the inconvenient truth is that drug courts, while well-intended, are fundamentally flawed for several reasons. Most prominent among them is that drug court programs misunderstand the nature of addiction, unjustifiably retain punitive elements that reflect stigmatization of addicted offenders and fail to provide the type of treatment protocols that are essential to maximizing positive outcomes for offenders. Those flaws are detailed below, followed by principled solutions that will enhance the efficacy and fairness with which we treat individuals who struggle with addiction. 

I.    The Problems

    A.    The individuals responsible for implementing and overseeing treatment of addicted offenders have a limited understanding of addiction. 

     Prosecutors and judges are given complete discretion over who is referred to drug court and which treatment is most appropriate for each individual. For example, prosecutors are given the power to “cherry-pick” participants who they believe will be successful in the program, and often intentionally exclude precisely those defendants who need the most help, namely, those with a history of addiction.[1] As such, offenders who are in dire need of treatment often receive no treatment at all and are instead relegated to a prison where they routinely decompensate. 

     This should come as no surprise. After all, why should prosecutors and judges, who have no education and experience in addiction or psychology, have the power to determine which defendants receive treatments, and the authority to set the parameters of that treatment? It is equivalent to permitting a cardiologist to determine whether a patient suffers from bipolar disorder. If drug courts are serious about providing efficacious and meaningful treatment to those offenders who need it, they should not entrust decision-making authority with individuals who know nothing of the problem that drug courts are designed to treat.

    B.    Drug courts strive to rehabilitate yet retain a punitive model that decreases the likelihood of successful treatment.  

     You can’t scare people into recovery. It’s like a parent telling a child that, if they continue to listen to a certain type of music, they will be grounded for six months. That might work in the short term. It utterly fails in the long term. Drug courts suffer from this problem. Put differently, if you are committing to a rehabilitative model, you have to be truly committed to that model. 

     Indeed, drug courts have adopted two intrinsically contradictory models which undermine their efficacy: the disease model (rehabilitative) and the rational actor model (punitive). The disease model recognizes that drug use for addicted individuals is compulsory and not morally blameworthy. Conversely, the rational actor model states that any given decision-maker is a rational person who is able to evaluate positive and negative outcomes to make the most rational decision—and thus would attach moral culpability to drug addiction. 

     Unfortunately, drug court programs embrace these contradictory models and, in so doing, impede treatment efficacy and, ultimately, an offender’s prospects for a full recovery. To be sure, in a drug court treatment program, an individual is given treatment based on the underlying assumption that they have an addiction, but if they fail to comply with all treatment protocols, they are threatened with punishment, including incarceration. 

     These models cannot function together because the rational actor model misunderstands the nature of addiction and the road to a successful recovery. Indeed, recovery is a difficult path, where setbacks and relapses are often common. Failing to understand the turbulent road to recovery forces addicts to attempt recovery under the shadow of shame and condemnation, and when a setback occurs, treatment is withdrawn and punishment, including incarceration, implemented. This is a prescription for failure.

    C.    For the participants who could benefit most from treatment, failure is far too common.

     For individuals who struggle with addiction—and are selected to participate in a drug court program—in most cases, they must plead guilty to their charges as a condition of their referral. And if an individual fails to complete the program, a person may not amend their guilty plea. Therefore, these people lose both the opportunity to plead guilty to a lesser offense and receive support services essential to their recovery. Furthermore, in some instances, a person struggling with addiction may face a longer sentence than they otherwise would have if they hadn’t been referred to drug court in the first instance when considering the days or weeks of incarceration they endured during the program as punishment for relapse or other minor infractions plus their full sentence decided by the judge upon removal from the program. 

     This troubling dynamic begs the question: what is the purpose of drug courts? Do they reflect a principled commitment to treating the issues underlying addiction? Do they focus on maximizing positive outcomes for offenders, many of whom are from marginalized communities—which requires tolerance of and treatment for setbacks, including relapses? Or do they reflect a half-hearted attempt to provide treatment that, upon the first hint of non-compliance, leads to incarceration and cessation of all treatment efforts? In many instances, it is the latter. And that makes drug courts rehabilitative in name only and restorative in theory but not in fact. 

     These are only a few of the major issues involved in drug court programs, but they demonstrate a fundamental need for a more suitable solution to address addiction, remove stigmatization, and provide meaningful rehabilitation. Below are three policy recommendations that would improve the efficacy and fairness and drug treatment in the criminal justice system.

II.    The Solutions   

    A.    Trained psychologists and psychiatrists -- not prosecutors and judges -- should evaluate all criminal defendants who struggle with drug addiction. 

     Many drug users struggle with serious and life-threatening addictions. And many of these people also suffer from mental health issues, such as depression or bipolar disorder, potentially using illegal drugs to self-medicate. For this and other reasons, trained psychologists and psychiatrists should evaluate and recommend the proper course of treatment for all defendants charged with drug crimes. These experts, unlike prosecutors and judges, understand addiction and mental illness, and thus can recommend and implement individualized treatment that will have the highest likelihood of success. In many instances, such treatment will likely include administering medication and providing cognitive behavioral therapy, as both psychiatric and psychological treatment increase substantially the likelihood of recovery.

     Furthermore, rather than being forced to plead guilty to a charged offense, the person should be granted a continuance for their case for a period of time deemed appropriate for treatment based on a psychiatrist’s and psychologist’s recommendations. Additionally, if a person is financially disadvantaged and unable to afford the medication prescribed and treatment recommended, the government should supply aid necessary to cover these costs. After all, if the criminal justice system is truly committed to rehabilitation, then it should put its money where its mouth is—figuratively and literally. 

     Now, if an offender struggling with addiction or mental illness is charged with a violent crime, the offender’s psychiatrist and psychologist should include in their assessment what effect, if any, the underlying disorders may have on the defendant’s culpability. Furthermore, if a defendant pleads or is adjudged guilty, the court should consider these assessments as mitigating factors at the sentencing stage. This will result in truly individualized sentences that reflect moral blameworthiness more accurately and result in less severe sentences more frequently. 

     Finally, this approach would prevent prosecutors—who have no expertise in understanding or treating addiction or mental illness—from cherry-picking which defendants are worthy of treatment, from imposing arbitrary barriers to accessing such treatment, and judges from implementing treatment programs that have minimal, if any, likelihood of success. 

    B.    The stigma and discrimination directed to individuals struggling with addiction and/or mental illness must end now. 

     Individuals who struggle with addiction or mental illness should never be stigmatized or marginalized. These people are forced to carry around society’s label of “otherness,” and that “otherness” leads to being denied admission to universities, rejected from employers, and ostracized by community members. This is wrong.  Giving people a second chance reflects empathy and understanding, which is often lacking from even the most passionate advocates of social justice. 

     Indeed, when jobs and education opportunities are gate-kept from individuals simply because they have a past, it perpetuates the cycle of recidivism and relapse that is so common in cases of substance abuse. Most importantly, it dehumanizes people who have fought valiantly to overcome addiction and adversity and disregards the inherent human dignity that all humans possess. Simply stated, we need to recognize that all humans are flawed and that, ultimately, we all share similar struggles. Treating people with compassion is essential to achieving justice in a meaningful and transformative manner. 

     C.    Implement community-based solutions that place individuals in the best position to achieve permanent recovery. 

     One of the major issues with drug court programs and incarceration is the lack of support upon reentry into society, which often prevents individuals from achieving the level of financial and social stability necessary to avoid reoffending. 

     Community-based solutions can help to facilitate an individual’s transition into society and provide the support necessary to prevent relapse or recidivism. And these solutions can encompass a wide range of possibilities. For example, volunteers in the community may be granted tax breaks if they agree to mentor these individuals and help them adjust to their new life and assist their mentees in signing up for or getting involved in other community-based solutions.

     Other community-based solutions may include granting the recently recovered person a lifetime membership to a community center such as the YMCA and contracting with local businesses to offer employment to individuals after successful completion of treatment. These businesses could receive tax breaks for their cooperation and continued dedication to affording opportunities to individuals who suffered from—and overcame—addiction or mental illness. Such an approach can help individuals to achieve stability and autonomy and to take responsibility for their lives and happiness. It also reflects the belief that giving people an opportunity to start anew is a chance worth taking. 

     Ultimately, current drug court programs, while well-intentioned, are not well-designed. The problem is that addiction and mental illness are largely misunderstood, often mistreated, and unnecessarily maligned. Dispensing with these stereotypes, which result in marginalization and discrimination, is the predicate to implementing meaningful and principled treatment programs. Most importantly, recognizing that people deserve a second chance, that morality has no place in addiction discourse, and that punishment is frequently devoid of purpose, is the first step to enacting reforms that respect human dignity and that reflect empathy for those that the criminal justice system has unjustly relegated to inconvenient enigmas. 

 

[1] See Drug Policy Alliance, Drug Courts Are Not The Answer: Toward A Health-Centered Approach to Drug Use, (March 2011), available at: https://drugpolicy.org/sites/default/files/Drug%20Courts%20Are%20Not%20the%20Answer_Final2.pdf 

Revisiting – and Reconsidering – Implicit Bias

Many academic institutions, professional organizations, and private corporations have embraced implicit bias training as a method by which to combat discrimination. The concept of implicit bias states that all individuals harbor unconscious biases that lead to, among other things, discrimination and the unequal treatment of individuals based on race. Although certainly well-intentioned (eradicating discrimination is a moral imperative), empirical studies suggest that: (1) the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which is used to detect individuals’ implicit biases, is flawed; (2) there is a weak correlation between implicit biases and biased behavior; and (3) few, if any, attempts have been made to quantify the degree to which implicit bias, particularly in light of explicit biases, impacts behavior.

 1.    The Implicit Association Test is Flawed

Some scholars and commentators have relied on the Implicit Association Test (IAT) to diagnose an individual’s implicit biases. The problem is that the IAT is flawed in many respects.

To begin with, the IAT sets arbitrary cutoff scores to determine whether an individual’s responses reveal implicit biases, yet fails to provide any assessments of the differences, if any, between the many individuals who score above or below those cutoffs.[1] Additionally, IAT scores are arguably context-dependent, as the IAT produces different results for individuals when they complete the test multiple times.[2] Furthermore, the IAT fails to meaningfully distinguish between implicit and explicit bias. As one scholar explains, “the IAT provides little insight into who will discriminate against whom, and provides no more insight than explicit measures of bias.”[3] One commentator states as follows:

The IAT is impacted by explicit attitudes, not just implicit attitudes … It is impacted by people’s ability to process information quickly on a general level. It is impacted by desires to want to create a good impression. It is impacted by the mood people are in. If the measure is an amalgamation of many things (one of which is purportedly implicit bias), how can we know which of those things is responsible for a (weak) correlation with behavior?[4]

To be sure, one scholar acknowledged that “what we don’t know is whether the IAT and measures like the IAT can predict behavior over and above corresponding questionnaires of what we could call explicit measures or explicit attitudes.”[5]

2.    Neither the Implicit Association Test Nor The Presence of Implicit Bias Reliably Predicts Biased Behavior

Empirical studies suggest that implicit biases do not predict biased behavior. Indeed, one researcher acknowledged that the IAT “cannot predict behavior at the level of an individual.”[6]  In fact, the evidence shows precisely the opposite:

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Harvard, and the University of Virginia examined 499 studies over 20 years involving 80,859 participants that used the IAT and other, similar measures. They discovered two things: One is that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior appears weaker than previously thought. They also conclude that there is very little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes in a person’s behavior. These findings, they write, "produce a challenge for this area of research.[7]

Additionally, researchers recently “examined 63 studies that explicitly considered a link between changes in bias and changes in actions … [but] they found no evidence of a causal relationship."[8] Put simply, very few, if any, sociological or psychological studies have established with any degree of reliability that implicit bias directly or proximately caused biased, or discriminatory, behavior. As one social psychologist explains:

Almost everything about implicit bias is controversial in scientific circles. It is not clear, for instance, what most implicit bias methods actually measure; their ability to predict discrimination is modest at best; their reliability is low; early claims about their power and immutability have proven unjustified.[9]

This is not to say, of course, that implicit bias does not exist, or that it does not have a material impact on biased behavior. It is to say, however, that the IAT – and evidence supporting a connection between implicit bias and biased behavior – is, at best, premature and, at worst, untenable. As two prominent scholars explain:

[M]uch murkiness surrounds (a) the proper causal explanation for alleged IAT effects, (b) the psychological meaning of IAT scores, (c) the statistical generality and potency of alleged relations between IAT scores and actual behavior, and (d) boundary conditions on alleged IAT effects.[10]

What’s more, even where researchers have claimed to reduce implicit biases, they found no concomitant reduction in biased behavior. That fact alone should cause scholars who have championed implicit bias to think that, just maybe, they have jumped the proverbial gun.

3.    Few, If Any, Attempts Have Been Made to Quantify Implicit Bias’s Impact on Biased Behavior

Assuming arguendo that implicit bias impacts biased behavior, scholars have made little, if any, attempt to quantify implicit bias’s impact on biased behavior. For example, is implicit bias responsible for 5%, 10%, 20%, or 50% (or more) of biased behaviors? This is particularly problematic given that the presence of other factors, such as explicit biases and prejudices, directly impact biased decision-making. This flaw should not be surprising. After all, if implicit bias is the product of unconscious – and thus involuntary – actions, it would appear difficult for researchers to credibly claim that they possess the ability to reliably measure and quantify a phenomenon that resides outside of their conscious awareness. But without attempting to do so, reliance on implicit bias as a predictor of biased conduct raises more questions than answers.

The research cited above is merely a sample of the articles that have cast doubt on the nexus between implicit bias and biased behavior. To be sure, the point of this article is not to say that implicit bias bears no relationship to biased behavior. It is to say, however, that the evidence for such a relationship is inconclusive, contested, and, quite frankly unpersuasive. As such, the adoption of programs in universities and corporations that strive to educate students and employees on the allegedly negative effects of implicit bias is, at best, premature and, at worst, misguided. What’s more, relevant research has produced “little evidence that implicit bias can be changed long term, and even less evidence that such changes lead to changes in behavior.”[11]

Ultimately, eradicating discrimination, addressing inequality, and ensuring equal opportunity are moral imperatives. The question, however, is how best to do that.

 

[1] See Azar, B. (2008). IAT: Fad or Fabulous. American Psychological Association. Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/07-08/psychometric.

[2] See id.

[3] Bartlett, T. (2017). Can We Really Measure Implicit Bias? Maybe Not. Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807.

[4] Lopez, G. (2017). For Years This Popular Test Measured Anyone’s Racial Bias. But It Might Not Work After All. Retrieved from: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test- racism.

[5] Id.

[6] Lee Jussim, Mandatory Implicit Bias Training is a Bad Idea (2017), available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201712/mandatory-implicit-bias-training-is-bad-idea.

[7] Bartlett, supra note 3, retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807.

[8] Brandie Jefferson, Change the Bias, Change the Behavior? Maybe Bot (Aug. 2019), available at: https://source.wustl.edu/2019/08/change-the-bias-change-the-behavior-maybe-not/

[9] Jussim, supra note 6, available at:  https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201712/mandatory-implicit-bias-training-is-bad-idea.

[10] Gregory Mitchell & Philip Tetlock, Antidiscrimination Law and the Perils of Mindreading. 67 Ohio St. L. J. 1023- 1121 (2006).

[11] University of Arkansas, Research Questions Link Between Unconscious Bias and Behavior (July 2019), available at: https://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2019/07/190701144324.htm.

Implicit Bias: Does It Have Any Relationship to Biased Behavior?

In recent years, social scientists have demonstrated that all individuals likely harbor implicit, or unconscious, biases. Additionally, based on empirical research, some scholars contend that laws or policies that disparately impact marginalized groups result, at least in part, from implicit biases. Other studies suggest that certain behaviors, such as statements reflecting subtle prejudice against marginalized groups (e.g., microaggressions) result from implicit biases. As a result, many organizations in the public and private sector have instituted training programs that focus on implicit bias, its allegedly deleterious effects, and the methods by which to alleviate such bias in, for example, the hiring and promotion of employees or admission of applicants to universities throughout the United States. And researchers at Harvard University have developed the Implicit Association Test (IAT), which purportedly measures the degree to which an individual harbors implicit biases in a variety of contexts, including those affecting traditionally marginalized groups.

Certainly, striving to eradicate biases that produce discriminatory or disparate impacts on individuals or groups is a moral and legal imperative; discrimination in any form is intolerable and contravenes the guarantee that citizens of all backgrounds enjoy liberty, equality, and due process of law.

But does implicit bias actually – and directly – correlate with biased behavior?

Recent research in the social sciences suggests that the answer to this question remains elusive and that the effect of implicit bias on biased behavior may not be as significant as previously believed.

To begin with, there is a general consensus among scholars that implicit bias exists. Put simply, all individuals, regardless of background, arguably harbor implicit biases or prejudices. Importantly, however, the distinction between implicit and explicit bias is difficult to ascertain and operationalize. In other words, how can researchers claim with any degree of confidence that discriminatory behaviors or policies that, for example, disparately impact marginalized groups are the product of implicit rather than explicit bias? Currently, there exists no reliable and objective criteria to make this distinction.

Furthermore, if, as some researchers contend, implicit bias resides outside of consciousness, it would seem difficult, if not impossible, to remedy the effects of such bias. After all, if we cannot be aware of these biases, how can we regulate their manifestation in particular contexts? Also, how can researchers reliably claim that implicit bias predicts biased behavior if not a single person, including researchers, can be aware of its presence and influence? This is not to say, of course, that individuals are unable to develop an increased awareness of the explicit biases that they harbor and take steps to minimize the effect of such biases on their behaviors. It is to say, though, that the relationship between implicit bias and biased behavior remains uncertain, and that there is no method by which to quantify the effect of implicit bias on biased behavior given the presence of other relevant factors (e.g., explicit bias).

Moreover, recent research suggests that the correlation between implicit bias and biased behavior is dubious:

Researchers from the University of Wisconsin at Madison, Harvard, and the University of Virginia examined 499 studies over 20 years involving 80,859 participants that used the IAT and other, similar measures. They discovered two things: One is that the correlation between implicit bias and discriminatory behavior appears weaker than previously thought. They also conclude that there is very little evidence that changes in implicit bias have anything to do with changes in a person’s behavior.[1]

These findings, the researchers state, “produce a challenge for this area of research.”[2]

Additionally, the IAT, which is a popular assessment of implicit bias, has faced significant criticism concerning its methodology and practical value. For example, the IAT sets arbitrary cutoff scores to determine whether an individual’s responses reveal implicit biases, yet fails to provide any assessments of the differences, if any, between the many individuals who score above or below those cutoffs.[3] Also, scores on the IAT are arguably context-dependent and thus produce different results for individuals who take the test multiple times.[4] Consequently, although results on the IAT are “not as malleable as mood,” they are “not as reliable as a personality trait.”[5] Likewise, it is difficult to assess whether the IAT is measuring unconscious attitudes of mere associations that result from environmental influences.[6]

In fact, researchers have conceded that the IAT is flawed, stating that, although the IAT “can predict things in the aggregate … it cannot predict behavior at the level of an individual.”[7] In fact, one of the IAT’s creators acknowledged that the IAT is only effective “for predicting individual behavior in the aggregate, and the correlations are small.”[8] Perhaps most surprisingly, one researcher explained that “what we don’t know is whether the IAT and measures like the IAT can predict behavior over and above corresponding questionnaires of what we could call explicit measures or explicit attitudes.”[9] As a social psychologist explains:

Almost everything about implicit bias is controversial in scientific circles. It is not clear, for instance, what most implicit bias methods actually measure; their ability to predict discrimination is modest at best; their reliability is low; early claims about their power and immutability have proven unjustified.[10]

Of course, this does not mean that implicit bias bears no relationship to biased behavior. It simply means that more research is necessary to determine whether, and to what extent, implicit bias predicts biased behavior. After all, given that eradicating all forms of discrimination is a moral imperative, researchers and policymakers should ensure that society is using the most effective measures to do so. This includes assessing whether implicit bias is a credible predictor of biased behavior.

[1] Bartlett, T. (2017). Can We Really Measure Implicit Bias? Maybe Not. Retrieved from: https://www.chronicle.com/article/Can-We-Really-Measure-Implicit/238807 (emphasis added).

[2] Id.

[3] Azar, B. (2008). IAT: Fad or Fabulous? American Psychological Association. Retrieved from: https://www.apa.org/monitor/2008/07-08/psychometric.

[4] Id.

[5] Id.

[6] Id.

[7] German Lopez, For Years, This Popular Test Measured Anyone’s Racial Bias. But It Might Not Work After All. (March 7, 2017), available at: https://www.vox.com/identities/2017/3/7/14637626/implicit-association-test-racism; see also Heather MacDonald, The False Science of Implicit Bias, (Oct. 9, 2017), available at: https://www.wsj.com/articles/the-false-science-of-implicit-bias-1507590908.

[8] Id.

[9] Id. (emphasis added).

[10] Lee Jussim, Mandatory Implicit Bias Training Is a Bad Idea (Dec. 2, 2017), available at: https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/rabble-rouser/201712/mandatory-implicit-bias-training-is-bad-idea.

Science & oral argument

Like a lot of advocacy professors, I'm an avid consumer of social-science literature on persuasion, decision-making, and pedagogy. And I'm a fan of efforts by law professors to apply this literature to what advocates do. Sure, we've got to be humble and cautious: I and many of the law professors with interest in this area aren't trained scientists or statisticians, and stuff like the Social Sciences Replication Project and the hubbub over power posing offer healthy reminders that it's possible (even easy, sometimes) for folks trained in the right disciplines to get out over their skies. As Ted Becker points out, we in the persuasion business don't really know much about what really persuades judges. But much of the good, humble, cautious work helps us at least start down the path of sorting out techniques that work from techniques that we adopt just because they're the way we do things. There is a wealth of interesting work being done in this area related to persuasive writing and legal reasoning: Kathy Stanchi's body of work on psychology and persuasion is remarkable; Lucy Jewel's piece on old-school rhetoric and new-school cognitive science is a revelation; Steven Winter's work broke fascinating ground in knitting together cognitive science and legal reasoning. I could mention dozens of other scholars here: exciting things are happening.

We don't have a similar volume, as yet, of scholarship linking social science to oral advocacy. Still: I'd like to devote a few posts to highlighting a couple of pieces that I find particularly useful in refining the advice I give to advocates and in polishing my own performances.

I think it's fair to call the first a classic in the field: Michael Higdon's Oral Argument and Impression Management: Harnessing the Power of Nonverbal Persuasion for a Judicial Audience, published in the Kansas Law Review in 2009. Professor Higdon offers a rich, comprehensive overview of research into the seven basic codes of nonverbal communication: (1) kinesics (i.e., what speakers do with their bodies); (2) physical appearance (i.e., what speakers look like); (3) vocalics (i.e., what speakers sound like); (4) haptics (i.e., how speakers physically touch an audience member); (5) proxemics (i.e., how speakers use physical space); (6) environment and artifacts (i.e., how speakers use instruments and their environment); and (7) chronemics (i.e., how speakers manages time). And he thoughtfully applies that research to what lawyers do in appellate oral argument.

I find Higdon's piece particularly useful in sorting out advice on things like the use of gestures. Quite often, beginning appellate advocates will do stuff with their hands that distracts judges. So they'll get categorical advice: don't talk with your hands. And they take that advice ... and promptly get told by the next set of judges not to be so stiff and nervous. Higdon's piece details research spanning several decades that makes it clear that any "don't use your hands" advice is flatly wrong: gestures are essential to effective in-person communication generally, and they're especially vital to persuasion. But there's a catch: only those gestures that are "synchronized with and supportive of the vocal/verbal stream" enhance comprehension and persuasion. The lesson that emerges: advocates should use purposeful gestures that match and support the points they make verbally, but avoid gestures that simply accompany the verbal stream. So use the hands to help you make a point, but don't let your hands flap around randomly to accompany your talk.

Higdon's points on speed of delivery (somewhat fast is actually good, so long as it doesn't flatten out a speaker's pitch and tone) and on managing the judges' dominance are similarly illuminating. If it is read as widely as it should be, the generations of appellate advocates will tilt their heads eight degrees to the right (see p. 643). And win.