In 2018, the wrongful arrest of two Black men led Starbucks to close 8,000 stores for racial bias training, underscoring the urgent need to address unconscious bias in the workplace (1). Unconscious biases, defined as automatic and unintentional associations shaped by our background, cultural environment, and experiences, influence our perceptions and behaviors without conscious intent or awareness (2). Historically, these biases have infiltrated workplaces, fostering systemic discrimination and inequality. Today, they perpetuate disparities across various dimensions, including gender, race, age, appearance, ability, sexual orientation, and socioeconomic status. Marginalized groups face significant employment barriers, widening economic gaps and reinforcing harmful cultural expectations (3). Recognizing and understanding unconscious bias is crucial for mitigating these influences and promoting equitable decisions in all aspects of life. With global spending on diversity training projected to hit $15.4 billion by 2026 (4), this article will explore how unconscious bias works, its impact in the workplace, and practical tips for aligning our conscious and unconscious decision-making.
To understand unconscious bias, consider a scenario where it does not exist. Every decision would require conscious focus and deliberate actions, creating a world where intuition is replaced by constant, exhaustive effort. Imagine deliberating over every split-second decision while driving or consciously analyzing every gesture during a conversation, making social interactions slow and unnatural. Traditional economic theories portray human decision-making as rational, assuming individuals have unlimited knowledge and information-processing capabilities (5; 6). These idealized models overlook the significant and complex influence of unconscious processes shaping real-world decisions. Research shows our cognitive resources are limited, and understanding these limitations is crucial for aligning our actions with our goals and reducing decision-making misalignments. Let’s take an interdisciplinary approach to address these complexities by integrating insights from neuroscience to explore brain structure, psychology to understand brain function, and evolutionary theories to examine the development of these processes.
Limited Capacity
Claude Shannon's 1948 work on communication theory sparked interest in the brain as an information-processing hub. Initially, researchers expected the human brain to demonstrate tremendous information-processing capabilities (7). George Miller’s 1956 research revealed a surprising limitation: short-term memory can hold about seven items (8). Additional research by Schweickert (9) added granularity by showing that the speed and complexity of information can further limit short-term memory, suggesting that cognitive capacity varies. Seeking direct quantification of our cognition, researchers discovered that the conscious mind processes only 3 to 4 bits of information per second (bps) out of the millions received through our senses (10). For instance, the human retina alone transmits approximately 10 million bps, compared to an Ethernet connection’s 10 to 100 million bps (11). These findings imply that while vast information is processed every second, only a tiny portion is handled consciously.
Limited Resources
With 100 billion neurons, the brain requires significant resources, consuming about 20% of the body's energy, which can increase to 30% with intense activity (12; 13). This high energy demand means the brain must prioritize efficiency over conscious processing to conserve resources. The brain reallocates resources to actively used areas, allowing unused regions to weaken over time, similar to muscle atrophy from inactivity (14). Cognitive abilities vary among individuals and are influenced by sleep, diet, and exercise, highlighting the dynamic nature of brain resource allocation and performance (15). These limitations align with the evolutionary theory of adaptive heuristics, suggesting the brain's reliance on simple, automatic and unconscious processes for decision-making to function effectively with energy constraints (16).
The Awareness Gap
Conscious processing is slow, often lagging behind real-time events. Libet's experiments show that a stimulus takes about 500 milliseconds to reach conscious awareness, indicating many decisions are initiated unconsciously (17). Since neuronal signals can travel up to 100 meters per second (18), the significant delay in consciousness has sparked intense debates about free will and the place of consciousness (19). Despite these controversies, recent functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) studies support the idea of unconscious processes driving decision-making. Brain activity patterns in the prefrontal and parietal cortex predicted participants' choices up to 10 seconds before conscious awareness (20). Brain damage studies provide further insights. Antoine Bechara's research found that patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions, who could not formulate intuitions, exhibited significant deficits, such as taking hours to choose between simple options like selecting between cereals (21). These findings emphasize that the timing gap between stimulus and conscious awareness necessitates unconscious processing for effective decision-making.
Dual Pathways
The dual processing model, famously developed by Daniel Kahneman, highlights how our brains function with fast, automatic, and unconscious pathways (System 1) alongside slower, deliberate, and conscious pathways (System 2) (22). Challenging the common belief that conscious thought is the dominant pathway, an intriguing new theory proposes that consciousness may be less vital than we think. Budson and colleagues (23) suggest that consciousness originally developed as part of the episodic memory system to recall and adjust past memories. If episodic memory evolved solely to represent past events accurately, it would be a terrible system due to forgetting and false memories. They argue it likely developed to flexibly and creatively combine past experiences to plan for the future, explaining consciousness’s slow speed and after-the-fact nature. The implications are profound, presenting unconscious processing as the primary driver of brain function, crucial for survival by rapidly integrating relevant associations, while conscious thought is secondary, tending to recall less pertinent or unrelated memories.
Unconscious bias can be measured through priming tests and the Implicit Association Test (IAT). Priming evaluates the influence of an initial stimulus on responses to a subsequent one, often so brief it is not consciously detected. For example, Payne's study showed that priming with Black faces led to more frequent misidentifications of tools as weapons (24). The IAT, developed by Greenwald et al. (25), measures automatic associations between concepts and attitudes. FMRI studies by Phelps et al. (26) validated the IAT by linking its scores to amygdala activity, indicating a neural correlation to threat detection. However, critics argue that the IAT can be influenced by situational factors like test context and the test-taker’s intent, and some studies suggest its predictive validity is limited, not accurately forecasting discriminatory behavior in real-world settings (27; 28). Despite its popularity in workplaces, the IAT's creators advised against its use in these settings (29), highlighting the need for more accurate assessment methods.
The Global Workplace
Globally, 48% of women are in the workforce, earning 20% less than men and facing 131 years to close the pay gap (30; 31). Ethnic minorities in the UK earn 10% less than their white counterparts, and persons with disabilities in the EU earn 12% less than their non-disabled peers (32; 33). These disparities build worldviews and unconscious expectations, shaping biases that infiltrate workplace dynamics. Unexplained height bias shows that taller individuals are more likely to become CEOs, with each inch of height corresponding to a 2.5% increase in income (34). Unconscious biases also manifest in less obvious ways; for instance, when YouTube first allowed users to upload videos, 5-10% were upside down, a bias linked to right-handed preferences (35). Recruitment bias further illustrates this, as job applicants with traditionally African-American names are 50% less likely to receive callbacks compared to those with white-sounding names, even with identical resumes (36). In orchestral settings, blind auditions increased the likelihood of women advancing by 30% (37), highlighting how some biases can only be mitigated through anonymized evaluations. Even technology like AI shows bias: hidden biases in large language models can more than double the likelihood of biased decisions against marginalized groups (38), illustrating how technology used in the workplace can further perpetuate unconscious biases.
At an Organizational Level
Anti-bias training programs began in the 1960s to assist men in navigating growing diversity post-civil rights reforms and evolved into diversity training to foster workplace inclusivity (39). Despite widespread implementation, many programs focus on bias awareness, which alone is inadequate for lasting behavioral changes, often overestimating people's willingness and ability to address their biases (40; 41). This narrow focus on individuals neglects the structural-organizational contexts that reproduce bias, including bias intersectionality that affects various groups differently. To address these limitations, organizations should (42; 43; 44):
Reform policies to embed bias reduction strategies and reshape norms: Policies should explicitly address unconscious bias and outline actionable steps to mitigate its impact. This includes revising recruitment, promotion, and evaluation processes to ensure fairness and transparency.
Conduct interactive training in contextual groups: Training should be specific to the context of the workplace, incorporating real-world scenarios that employees can relate to. This approach makes the training more relevant and engaging. For example, workshops that simulate actual workplace situations have shown promise in making bias training more effective.
Rigorously evaluate interventions with before-and-after measures and control groups: Implement robust evaluation methods to assess the effectiveness of bias reduction programs. This involves measuring outcomes before and after the interventions and comparing results with control groups.
Promote organizational culture change to foster lasting inclusion and equity: Cultivate an inclusive culture by encouraging open dialogue about biases and their impact. Leadership should model inclusive behaviors and support initiatives that promote diversity and equity. Creating an environment where employees feel safe to discuss and address biases is essential for long-term change.
At an Individual Level
Emerging research indicates that empowering individuals as change agents through validated bias habit-breaking training can lead to long-term bias reduction (45). Since brain processing is predominantly unconscious, practice and habit are crucial to building automatic actions. To address unconscious bias, individuals can:
Regularly visualize unexpected scenarios before they occur to broaden implicit associations: It may sound silly, but our brain will strengthen connections whether we experience them, or think them. Mentally imagining interactions with people of a group you would not normally associate with that situation, can reinforce unconscious associations and reduce bias in real situations (46).
Reflect on surprising actions to adjust biased responses: When people encounter unexpected reactions or outcomes, they should take time to reflect and understand the underlying biases. This self-awareness can help adjust future responses. Reflective practices, such as journaling about biases noticed during the day, can reinforce this habit.
Engage with diverse groups to challenge ingrained biases: Actively seeking out interactions with people from different backgrounds or cultures exposes individuals to new perspectives and can broaden their range of expectations, creating a more inclusive mindset.
These strategies leverage the speed of unconscious processing, making practice and habit crucial for lasting change. By addressing unconscious bias at both organizational and individual levels, we can create more equitable and inclusive workplaces.
Unconscious bias, deeply rooted in our evolutionary past and limited cognitive resources, profoundly shapes workplace dynamics. It is a human condition that influences our decisions and behaviors without our awareness. Conscious and unconscious biases shape our choices, often complicating our recognition of their presence. While unconscious bias cannot be eliminated, we can reduce its impact by embedding bias reduction strategies into organizational policies and empowering individuals through habit-breaking training. Doing so can build more equitable and inclusive workplaces, lessening the gap between what we do and what we intend to do.
Abrams, R. (2018, April 17). Starbucks to close 8,000 U.S. stores for racial-bias training after arrests. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/17/business/starbucks-arrests-racial-bias.html
Greenwald, A. G., & Banaji, M. R. (1995). Implicit social cognition: Attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychological Review, 102(1), 4–27. https://doi.org/10.1037/0033-295x.102.1.4
Heymann, J., Varvaro-Toney, S., Raub, A., Kabir, F., & Sprague, A. (2023). Race, ethnicity, and discrimination at work: A new analysis of legal protections and gaps in all 193 UN countries. Equality, Diversity and Inclusion: An International Journal, 42(9), 16–34. https://doi.org/10.1108/edi-01-2022-0027
World Economic Forum. (2023). Global Parity Alliance: Diversity, equity and inclusion lighthouses 2023. https://www.weforum.org/publications/global-parity-alliance-diversity-equity-and-inclusion-lighthouses-2023
Mill, J. S. (1849). Principles of political economy with some of their applications to social philosophy: By John Stuart Mill. In two volumes (2nd ed.). London: John W. Parker, West Strand.
Von Neumann, J., & Morgenstern, O. (1944). Theory of games and economic behavior. Princeton University Press.
Shannon, C. E. (1948). A mathematical theory of communication. Bell System Technical Journal, 27, 379-423. http://dx.doi.org/10.1002/j.1538-7305.1948.tb01338.
Miller, G. A. (1956). The magical number seven, plus or minus two: Some limits on our capacity for processing information. Psychological Review, 63, 81.
Schweickert, R., & Boruff, B. (1986). Short-term memory capacity: Magic number or magic spell? Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition, 12(3), 419–425. https://doi.org/10.1037//0278-7393.12.3.419
Wu, Y., Qu, Y., Tang, Y. Y., & Qiu, J. (2016). The limited capacity of visual working memory and visual mental imagery in high-imagery vs. low-imagery individuals. Scientific Reports, 6, 21028. https://doi.org/10.1038/srep21028
Koch, K., McLean, J., Segev, R., Freed, M. A., Berry, M. J., Balasubramanian, V., & Sterling, P. (2006). How much the eye tells the brain. Current Biology, 16(14), 1428–1434. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cub.2006.05.056
Shulman, R. G., Hyder, F., & Rothman, D. L. (2014). Insights from neuroenergetics into the interpretation of functional neuroimaging: An alternative empirical model for studying the brain’s support of behavior. Journal of Cerebral Blood Flow & Metabolism, 34(11), 1721–1735. https://doi.org/10.1038/jcbfm.2014.145
Stiles, J., & Jernigan, T. L. (2010). The basics of brain development. Neuropsychology Review, 20(4), 327–348. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11065-010-9148-4
Valenzuela, M. J., Sachdev, P., Wen, W., Chen, X., & Brodaty, H. (2008). Lifespan mental activity predicts diminished rate of hippocampal atrophy. PLoS ONE, 3(7), e2598. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0002598
Sewell, K. R., Rafalow, M. H., & Baron, J. (2021). Cognitive health and its determinants: Insights from a new survey. PLOS ONE, 16(2), e0246135. https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0246135
Todd, P., Ortega, J., Davis, J., Gigerenzer, G., Goldstein, D., Goodie, A., Hertwig, R., Hoffrage, U., Laskey, K., Martignon, L., & Miller, G. (1999). Simple heuristics that make us smart. Oxford University Press.
Libet, B. (1985). Unconscious cerebral initiative and the role of conscious will in voluntary action. Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(4), 529–539. https://doi.org/10.1017/s0140525x00044903
Blackmore, S. (2017). Consciousness: A very short introduction (2nd ed.). Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
Schurger, A., Sitt, J. D., & Dehaene, S. (2012). An accumulator model for spontaneous neural activity prior to self-initiated movement. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 109(42), E2904–E2913. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1210467109
Soon, C. S., Brass, M., Heinze, H.-J., & Haynes, J.-D. (2008). Unconscious determinants of free decisions in the human brain. Nature Neuroscience, 11(5), 543–545. https://doi.org/10.1038/nn.2112
Bechara, A., Tranel, D., & Damasio, H. (2000). Characterization of the decision-making deficit of patients with ventromedial prefrontal cortex lesions. Brain, 123(11), 2189–2202. https://doi.org/10.1093/brain/123.11.2189
Kahneman, D. (2011). Thinking, fast and slow. New York, NY: Farrar, Straus and Giroux.
Budson, A. E., Richman, K. A., & Kensinger, E. A. (2022). Consciousness as a memory system. Cognitive and Behavioral Neurology, 35(4), 263–297. https://doi.org/10.1097/wnn.0000000000000319
Payne, B. K. (2001). Prejudice and perception: The role of automatic and controlled processes in misperceiving a weapon. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 81(2), 181–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.81.2.181
Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E., & Schwartz, J. L. K. (1998). Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: The implicit association test. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 74(6), 1464–1480. https://doi.org/10.1037//0022-3514.74.6.1464
Phelps, E. A., O’Connor, K. J., Cunningham, W. A., Funayama, E. S., Gatenby, J. C., Gore, J. C., & Banaji, M. R. (2000). Performance on indirect measures of race evaluation predicts amygdala activation. Journal of Cognitive Neuroscience, 12(5), 729–738. https://doi.org/10.1162/089892900562552
Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., Klick, J., Mellers, B., Mitchell, G., & Tetlock, P. E. (2009). Strong claims and weak evidence: Reassessing the predictive validity of the IAT. Journal of Applied Psychology, 94(3), 567–582. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0014665
Oswald, F. L., Mitchell, G., Blanton, H., Jaccard, J., & Tetlock, P. E. (2013). Predicting ethnic and racial discrimination: A meta-analysis of IAT criterion studies. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 105(2), 171–192. https://doi.org/10.1037/a0032734
FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., & Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions designed to reduce implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: A systematic review. BMC Psychology, 7(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0299-7
International Labour Organization. (2024). World employment and social outlook: Trends 2024. https://www.ilo.org/global/research/global-reports/weso/trends2024/lang--en/index.htm
World Economic Forum. (2023). Global gender gap report 2023. https://www.weforum.org/reports/global-gender-gap-report-2023
Eurostat. (2023). Disability employment gap in the EU. https://ec.europa.eu/eurostat/web/products-eurostat-news/-/ddn-2023-11-22
Office for National Statistics. (2023). Ethnicity pay gaps: 2023. https://www.ons.gov.uk/employmentandlabourmarket/peopleinwork/earningsandworkinghours/articles/ethnicitypaygapsintheuk/2023-04-26
Judge, T. A., & Cable, D. M. (2004). The effect of physical height on workplace success and income: Preliminary test of a theoretical model. Journal of Applied Psychology, 89(3), 428–441. https://doi.org/10.1037/0021-9010.89.3.428
Bock, L., & Welle, B. (2014, September 25). You don’t know what you don’t know: How our unconscious minds undermine the workplace. Google. https://blog.google/inside-google/life-at-google/you-dont-know-what-you-dont-know-how/
Bertrand, M., & Mullainathan, S. (2004). Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. American Economic Review, 94(4), 991–1013. https://doi.org/10.1257/0002828042002561
Goldin, C., & Rouse, C. (2000). Orchestrating impartiality: The impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. American Economic Review, 90(4), 715–741. https://doi.org/10.1257/aer.90.4.715
Bai, X., Wang, A., Sucholutsky, I., & Griffiths, T. L. (2024). Measuring implicit bias in explicitly unbiased large language models. ArXiv.
Kalev, A., & Dobbin, F. (2024). Retooling career systems to fight workplace bias: Evidence from U.S. corporations. Daedalus, 153(1), 213–230. https://doi.org/10.1162/daed_a_02056
Forscher, P. S., Lai, C. K., Axt, J. R., Ebersole, C. R., Herman, M., Devine, P. G., & Nosek, B. A. (2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000160
Correll, S. J. (2017). Reducing gender biases in modern workplaces: A small wins approach to organizational change. Gender & Society, 31(6), 725–750.
Atewologun, D., & Tresh, F. (2018). Unconscious bias training: An assessment of the evidence for effectiveness.
FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D., & Hurst, S. (2019). Interventions designed to reduce implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: A systematic review. BMC Psychology, 7(1), 29. https://doi.org/10.1186/s40359-019-0299-7
Guschke, B. L., & Christensen, J. F. (2021). From individual to organisational bias: A norm-critical proposition for unconscious bias intervention in organizations. Kvinder, Køn & Forskning, 3, 86–105. https://doi.org/10.7146/kkf.v31i3.128974
Cox, W. T. L. (2023). Developing scientifically validated bias and diversity trainings that work: Empowering agents of change to reduce bias, create inclusion, and promote equity. Management Decision, 61(4), 1038–1061. https://doi.org/10.1108/md-06-2021-0839
Ganis, G., Thompson, W. L., & Kosslyn, S. M. (2004). Brain areas underlying visual mental imagery and visual perception: An fMRI study. Cognitive Brain Research, 20(2), 226–241. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cogbrainres.2004.02.012
