Cited by 495Social and Intergroup PsychologyCultural Competency in Health CareRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 127 of the 130 references it cites were found in a registry or an index; none of the 120 sources its claims cite is checked for support yet.

Reducing Racial Bias Among Health Care Providers: Lessons from Social-Cognitive Psychology

Open access
Burgess, Diana, van Ryn, Michelle, Dovidio, John, Saha, Somnath·2007·Journal of General Internal Medicine

Abstract

The paper sets forth a set of evidence-based recommendations for interventions to combat unintentional bias among health care providers, drawing upon theory and research in social cognitive psychology. Our primary aim is to provide a framework that outlines strategies and skills, which can be taught to medical trainees and practicing physicians, to prevent unconscious racial attitudes and stereotypes from negatively influencing the course and outcomes of clinical encounters. These strategies and skills are designed to: 1) enhance internal motivation to reduce bias, while avoiding external pressure; 2) increase understanding about the psychological basis of bias; 3) enhance providers' confidence in their ability to successfully interact with socially dissimilar patients; 4) enhance emotional regulation skills; and 5) improve the ability to build partnerships with patients. We emphasize the need for programs to provide a nonthreatening environment in which to practice new skills and the need to avoid making providers ashamed of having racial, ethnic, or cultural stereotypes. These recommendations are also intended to provide a springboard for research on interventions to reduce unintentional racial bias in health care.

Overview

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This paper proposes a social-cognitive framework of five strategies to help health care providers prevent unconscious racial stereotypes from negatively affecting clinical encounters. It argues that interventions should build internal motivation, understanding, confidence, emotional regulation, empathy/perspective taking, and partnership building, while cautioning that these recommendations have not yet been tested in health care.

Key findings

  • The paper recommends five intervention targets: (1) enhance internal motivation to reduce bias while avoiding external pressure; (2) increase understanding of the psychological basis of bias; (3) enhance providers’ confidence in interacting with socially dissimilar patients; (4) enhance emotional regulation skills; and (5) improve the ability to build partnerships with patients.
  • It warns that stereotype suppression can produce a “rebound effect,” increased social distancing, and depletion of cognitive resources; it recommends recognizing stereotypes and using counter-strategies rather than trying to actively suppress them.
  • It highlights individuation, positive emotion, perspective taking/affective empathy, and common ingroup/partnership building as promising mechanisms from social-cognitive research; it notes that empathy has been shown to decline over medical training and physicians’ careers, suggesting interventions may need repetition.
  • It states that the recommendations are based on empirical work mostly not conducted in health care providers and settings, and should undergo rigorous evaluation before widespread adoption.

Methods

  • Design: conceptual/recommendation paper, not an empirical study; it sets forth evidence-based recommendations drawing on theory and research in social cognitive psychology.
  • Data or sample: Not stated in the paper; no primary data, sample, or systematic review is described.
  • Main analysis: narrative synthesis of theory and prior research, organized around a conceptual model (Figure 1) emphasizing motivation, information, skills, and emotion in interracial interaction.

Limitations

  • Paper-stated: most supporting empirical work was not conducted in health care providers and settings; future interventions need rigorous evaluation, including attention to unintended consequences.
  • Paper-stated: changing habits may temporarily increase cognitive burden, strategies take time and practice to become automatic, and the recommendations are not comprehensive or necessarily stand-alone programs.
  • Evident from the text: there are no primary data or formal systematic review, and the proposed strategies remain untested in health care, so their effectiveness and potential harms are unknown.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1007/s11606-007-0160-1

Cites

127 of 127 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Verification

Claims the paper makes

43 Not checked yet · 13 Own interpretation

Verify all 120 references — free account

Show all 32 claims

  • It may state two separate claims as one. 22
  • Probably not a substantial claim. 2
24 of 24
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    There has been relatively little discussion to date of how to mitigate the negative impact of unconscious racial stereotyping among health care providers.

    “In fact, there has been relatively little discussion to date of how to mitigate the negative impact of unconscious racial stereotyping among health care providers, despite the acknowledged need to do so.32–35”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The proposed strategies have not yet been tested in the realm of health care.

    “It is important to note that these proposed strategies have not yet been tested in the realm of health care and should undergo rigorous evaluation before widespread adoption.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The cognitive strategy of categorization that gives rise to stereotyping and racial prejudice is a normal aspect of human cognition.

    “current understanding posits that the cognitive strategy of categorization that gives rise to stereotyping and racial prejudice is a normal aspect of human cognition.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Stress and negative emotions may increase stereotyping.

    “simply being aware that stress and negative emotions may increase stereotyping could make providers more vigilant about when their interactions with patients are likely to be biased.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    In the United States, race, ethnicity, and sex represent automatically activated categories that form the basis for ingroup–outgroup differentiation.

    “In the United States, race, ethnicity, and sex represent automatically activated categories that form the basis for ingroup–outgroup differentiation.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Most of the empirical work underlying the recommendations has not been conducted in health care providers and settings.

    “First, although our recommendations are based on empirical work, most of that work has not been conducted in health care providers and settings.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The recommended social-cognitive strategies can prevent unconscious racial attitudes and stereotypes from negatively influencing the course and outcomes of clinical encounters.

    “our recommended strategies are not intended to change these associations directly,47 but rather to give providers strategies and skills to prevent unconscious attitudes and stereotypes from influencing the course and outcomes of clinical encounters in negative ways.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Efforts such as enhancing empathy and partnership building are relevant to reducing provider bias.

    “Efforts such as enhancing empathy and partnership building are relevant not only to reducing provider bias but to improving patient–provider relationships in general.”
  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Efforts such as enhancing empathy and partnership building are relevant to improving patient–provider relationships in general.

    “Efforts such as enhancing empathy and partnership building are relevant not only to reducing provider bias but to improving patient–provider relationships in general.”
9 of 9

Claims other papers make about this one

Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?

Citations

Cites

Show all 130 references

Research works printed but not linked: 5

  1. Bobo L. Racial attitudes and relations at the close of the twentieth century. In: Smelser NJ, Wilson WJ, Mitchell F, eds. Racial trends and their consequences. Washington, DC: National Academy Press; 2001:264–301.
  2. Hunt JS, Rothmann TL, Rothman AJ, Iyer SN, McGorty EK. Implicit and explicit associations between health problems and social groups. Psychol Health. In press.
  3. Bargh J. The cognitive monster: The case against controllability of automatic stereotype effects. In: Chaiken S, Trope Y, eds. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford Press; 1999:361–82.
  4. Fiske ST, Lin M, Neuberg SL. The continuum model: ten years later. In: Trope SCY, ed. Dual Process Theories in Social Psychology. New York: Guilford; 1999:211–54.
  5. Dovidio JF, Gaertner SL, Stewart TL, Esses VM, ten Vergert M. From intervention to outcomes: processes in the reduction of bias. In: Stephan WG, Vogt P, eds. Intergroup Relations Programs: Practice, Research, and Theory. New York Teachers College Press; 2004:243–65.

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Items 401–493 of 493

Metadata

Authors
Burgess, D., van Ryn, M., Dovidio, J., & Saha, S.
Affiliations
  • University of Minnesota (US)
  • Yale University (US)
  • Oregon Health & Science University (US)
Corresponding author
Burgess, Diana
Venue
Journal of General Internal Medicine
Published
2007-03-03
Volume
22
Issue
6
Pages
882-887
ISSN
  • 0884-8734 (ISSN-L)
  • 1525-1497
OpenAlex
W2011893684
Cited by
495
References
130
Citations by year
2026: 13 · 2025: 49 · 2024: 28 · 2023: 27 · 2022: 51 · 2021: 44 · 2020: 34 · 2019: 35 · 2018: 30 · 2017: 25 · 2016: 24 · 2015: 22 · 2014: 24 · 2013: 24 · 2012: 12
FWCI
40.49
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Journal of General Internal Medicine (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Funders
U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Cultural Competency in Health Care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
racial bias, healthcare workers, social cognitive psychology, bias reduction interventions, medical trainees, physician-patient interaction, emotion regulation, patient partnership, intrinsic motivation
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Delivery of Health Care, Health Personnel, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Prejudice, Race Relations, Social Perception, Stereotyping

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

A language model drew the claims from the paper on 2026-10-09, under version 3 of the claim definition (model deepseek-v4.1-flash, prompt extract-v3).

A second model labelled each claim on 2026-10-09 (model jev-1.13-20260917, definition revision gold-guideline-v0.2).

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review