Five evidence-based strategies for reducing implicit bias
Implicit biases are automatic associations shaped by culture, media, training, workplace norms, upbringing, and repeated exposure over time. They’re learned mental shortcuts that influence how we interpret behaviour, risk, and credibility before we’ve even had time to properly understand the situation.
In healthcare, high cognitive load and time pressure mean everyone relies on shortcuts. That reliance isn’t intentional or malicious, but it can still negatively shape outcomes: by influencing how people are diagnosed, how symptoms are interpreted, and how care is delivered.
Implicit bias operates independently of explicit beliefs and values, so it’s important to remember that it isn’t the same as consciously endorsing prejudice or intentionally treating someone unfairly
Figure out your biases
Do you have implicit biases? The most well known test is the Harvard Implicit Association Test (IAT). Originally developed to assess bias towards race, there are now 18 different topics from race to gender and sexuality to disability.
Once you start noticing these biases, the real work begins. Awareness on its own doesn’t change much. But what you do with it, does.
Tackle your biases
The good news is that there are various proven strategies to reduce implicit bias.
The five strategies below come from the paper Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention, which encouraged people to use different strategies in different situations rather than hunting for a single ‘best’ technique.
And even better? This study, consistent with a wider body of evidence, found that sustained reductions in implicit bias is possible.
Strategies for reducing implicit bias
1. Stereotype replacement (Monteith, 1993)
Stereotype replacement is about what you do after you notice a biased response. That moment is often small and easy to miss. It might be:
A flicker of discomfort
Catching yourself reaching for a familiar label or phrase
Realising you’ve filled in gaps without solid evidence
Rather than ignoring these moments, stereotype replacement uses them as a cue to pause and reset by:
Recognising that the reaction is shaped by a stereotype
Naming it for what it is
Reflecting on why it came up
Consciously choosing a response that better reflects the evidence in front of you and your professional and personal values
2. Counter-stereotypic imaging (Blair et al., 2001)
Counter-stereotypic imaging works by deliberately bringing to mind people who contradict common stereotypes. These might be:
People you know personally
Patients or colleagues you’ve worked with
Well-known public figures
Clear, detailed hypothetical examples
When counter-examples are vivid and familiar, stereotypes are less likely to dominate automatic judgement and disrupt generalisations before they shape interpretation or decision-making.
3. Individuation (Brewer, 1988; Fiske & Neuberg, 1990)
Individuation shifts attention away from group-based assumptions and toward the individual in front of you. It involves:
Actively seeking more detail
Paying attention to context, history, preferences, and constraints
Holding off on judgement until you’ve got enough information
In practice, this often means asking more questions and resisting the urge to categorise too quickly. In healthcare, this couldn’t be more important. Snap assumptions can affect how symptoms are interpreted, how histories are written, and how treatment plans are shaped.
4. Perspective taking (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000)
Perspective taking reduces bias by briefly stepping into the patient’s position rather than viewing the situation only through a clinical lens. Instead of observing from the outside, ask:
What might this experience feel like from their side?
What past experiences might be shaping their response?
How might the system look from where they stand?
This approach draws attention to how stigma, power imbalances, and previous encounters with healthcare can influence how someone presents, communicates, or responds.
5. Increasing opportunities for contact (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006)
Contact-based approaches are integral to tackling stigma in healthcare but are especially powerful for challenging implicit bias. This strategy focuses on increasing regular, meaningful interactions with people from groups that are often stereotyped or marginalised.
Effective contact should be:
Repeated rather than one-off
Supported rather than tokenistic
Grounded in shared work or goals
That might mean working alongside peer workers, partnering with community-led services, or choosing training that includes supported contact rather than hypothetical case studies.
A great example was shared by our recent Tackling Stigma champion Dr. Bruce Agins:
Why these strategies work better together
In the habit-breaking intervention from the paper that we have shared these strategies from, they were deliberately designed to reinforce each other:
Contact creates opportunities for individuation and counter-stereotypic imaging
Perspective taking supports stereotype replacement
Individuation reduces reliance on group-based assumptions
In practice, it matters less which strategy you reach for in the moment. What matters is being brave enough to examine your unconscious reactions, question where they come from, and do the work to lessen their impact.
A final note: This article has been written as part of our February focus on implicit bias. While personal biases shape everyday interactions, they do not sit in isolation. Institutional structures, policies, and norms play a significant role in producing and sustaining stigma.