CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,259Social and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchNames, Identity, and Discrimination Research

Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention

Open access
Devine, Patricia G., Forscher, Patrick S., Austin, Anthony J., Cox, William T.L.·2012·Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
DOI 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003PMC PMC3603687
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

We developed a multi-faceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention to produce long-term reductions in implicit race bias. The intervention is based on the premise that implicit bias is like a habit that can be reduced through a combination of awareness of implicit bias, concern about the effects of that bias, and the application of strategies to reduce bias. In a 12-week longitudinal study, people who received the intervention showed dramatic reductions in implicit race bias. People who were concerned about discrimination or who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions. The intervention also led to increases in concern about discrimination and personal awareness of bias over the duration of the study. People in the control group showed none of the above effects. Our results raise the hope of reducing persistent and unintentional forms of discrimination that arise from implicit bias.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

A multifaceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention produced reductions in implicit race bias that persisted 8 weeks after the manipulation in a randomized controlled trial. Intervention participants showed lower IAT scores than controls, and greater week-2 concern about discrimination and strategy use predicted larger reductions.

Key findings

  • Intervention participants had lower implicit race bias than control participants after the manipulation, \(B = -.19\), \(t(88) = -2.82\), \(p = .006\), \(\Delta R^2 = .081\); the reductions at 4 and 8 weeks did not differ systematically, \(B = .091\), \(t(88) = .82\), \(p = .42\).
  • The intervention increased concern about discrimination, \(B = .43\), \(t(88) = 2.24\), \(p = .028\), \(\Delta R^2 = .049\), and prejudice-relevant discrepancies, \(B = .38\), \(t(88) = 2.31\), \(p = .024\), \(\Delta R^2 = .047\), but did not change racial attitudes or internal/external motivations to respond without prejudice (all \(ps \ge .53\)).
  • Week-2 concern about discrimination moderated the intervention effect on implicit bias, \(B = -.15\), \(t(86) = -2.46\), \(p = .016\), \(\Delta R^2 = .058\); high-concern intervention participants had IAT scores .38 units lower at week 4 and .31 units lower at week 8 than high-concern control participants.
  • Self-reported likelihood to use the strategies predicted lower implicit race bias, \(B = -.14\), \(t(50) = -3.18\), \(p = .003\), \(\Delta R^2 = .17\); implementation-related word stems at week 2 predicted lower week-4 IAT bias, \(B = -.068\), \(t(50) = -2.47\), \(p = .017\), \(\Delta R^2 = .11\), and likelihood plus implementation word use jointly accounted for 23% of the variance in week-4 implicit bias.

Methods

  • Ninety-one non-Black introductory psychology students (67% female, 85% White) completed a 12-week longitudinal study; participants were randomly assigned to intervention (\(n = 53\)) or control (\(n = 38\)).
  • Implicit race bias was measured with the Black–White IAT at baseline and 4 and 8 weeks after the manipulation; explicit measures were administered 4 weeks before and 2 and 6 weeks after the manipulation. The intervention was a 45-minute narrated interactive slideshow with education and training in five strategies: stereotype replacement, counter-stereotypic imaging, individuation, perspective taking, and increasing opportunities for contact.
  • Analyses used general linear models with the baseline dependent variable as a covariate, multiple imputation for missing data, moderation analyses, and text mining of free-response strategy-use reports.

Limitations

  • The paper states that the multifaceted intervention creates ambiguity about which components are necessary or sufficient, that the study lacked precise quantitative indicators of use of the five strategies, and that future work must show whether reductions in implicit bias lead to reductions in discriminatory outcomes.
  • Evident from the text: the sample was non-Black introductory psychology students, mostly White and female, limiting generalizability; the study used only one implicit measure, the Black–White IAT.

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

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003

Cites

74 of 74 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

25 tests recomputed · 1 with the reported and recomputed p on opposite sides of .05

Claims the paper makes

0 of 45 cited sources checked · 0 supported · 0 flagged

  • Findingown data

    Intervention condition participants with more concern about discrimination at week 2 had particularly low levels of implicit bias at weeks 4 and 8.

    “As shown in Figure 5, intervention condition participants with more concern about discrimination at week 2 had particularly low levels of implicit bias at weeks 4 and 8.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.
  • Findingown data

    People in the control group showed none of the above effects.

    “People in the control group showed none of the above effects.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Findingown data

    The only week 2 explicit variable to emerge as a moderator of the intervention's effect on implicit bias was concern about discrimination.

    “The only week 2 explicit variable to emerge as a moderator was concern about discrimination, B = -.15, t(86) = -2.46, p = .016, ΔR2 = .058, all other ps ≥ .23.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.
  • Findingown data

    Participants in the intervention group increased in concern after they received the intervention, B = .40, t(89) = 2.10, p = .042, d = .38.

    “participants in the intervention group increased in concern after they received the intervention, B = .40, t(89) = 2.10, p = .042, d = .38.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • Findingown data

    Intervention group participants had higher concern about discrimination than control group participants following the intervention manipulation, B = .43, t(88) = 2.24, p = .028, ΔR2 = .049.

    “Intervention group participants had higher concern than control group participants following the intervention manipulation, B = .43, t(88) = 2.24, p = .028, ΔR2 = .049.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
  • The quote only partly states this claim. 3
  • May combine two claims. 24
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 10

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    People who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions in implicit race bias.

    “People who were concerned about discrimination or who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived difficulty of implementing the strategies and willingness to use the strategies did not emerge as predictors of reduced bias.

    “Perceived difficulty of implementing the strategies and willingness to use the strategies did not emerge as predictors of reduced bias, ps > .23.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    Perceived effectiveness emerged as a predictor of lower implicit race bias.

    “as did perceived effectiveness, B = -.12, t(50) = -1.86, p = .069, ΔR2 = .063.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The intervention simultaneously increased self-reported concern about discrimination and prejudice-relevant discrepancies.

    “Another encouraging finding was the simultaneous effect of the intervention on increasing people’s self-reported concern about discrimination and prejudice-relevant discrepancies.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Findingown data

    Likelihood and use of implementation-related word stems were almost entirely independent of each other.

    “We also tested whether likelihood was related to use of implementation-related word stems, but, in fact, these two variables were almost entirely independent of each other, r = .027.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants’ free-response descriptions of strategy use accurately reflect their actual use of strategies.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Perceived opportunities was highly correlated with likelihood, and perceived effectiveness was also correlated with likelihood.

    “Perceived opportunities was, however, highly correlated with likelihood, r = .76, as was effectiveness, r = .40”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The interactive effect of condition and concern was entirely driven by a robust relationship between concern and implicit bias in the intervention condition, a relationship that was entirely absent in the control condition.

    “The interactive effect of condition and concern was entirely driven by a robust relationship between concern and implicit bias in the intervention condition, B = -.16, t(86) = -2.90, p = .009, ΔR2 = .12, a relationship that was entirely absent in the control condition, B = .028, t(86) = .55, p = .59, ΔR2 = .005.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    The intervention manipulation created no changes in participants' reported racial attitudes or their internal/external motivations to respond without prejudice (all ps ≥ .53).

    “The intervention manipulation created no changes in either the participants’ reported racial attitudes or their internal/external motivations to respond without prejudice (all ps ≥ .53).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data

    Compared to high concern control group participants, the predicted IAT scores of high concern participants in the intervention group were .38 units lower at week 4 and .31 units lower at week 8.

    “Compared to high concern control group participants, the predicted IAT scores of high concern participants in the intervention group were .38 units lower at week 4 and .31 units lower at week 8.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.

  • The quote only partly states this claim.

    Findingown data

    People who were concerned about discrimination showed the greatest reductions in implicit race bias.

    “People who were concerned about discrimination or who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation

    General dual-process theories suggest that one-shot reductions in implicit bias are likely to be highly contextual and short-lived.

    “some general dual-process theories in psychology (e.g., Epstein, 1994; Smith & DeCoster, 2000; Strack & Deutsch, 2004) suggest that such reductions are likely to be highly contextual and short-lived.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Epstein, 1994 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Smith & DeCoster, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Strack & Deutsch, 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Implicit race biases are automatically activated and often unintentional, and are major contributors to the perpetuation of discrimination.

    “Several theorists have implicated implicit race biases, which are automatically activated and often unintentional, as major contributors to the perpetuation of discrimination”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Devine, 1989 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Fiske, 1998

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Implicit biases are linked to discriminatory outcomes ranging from poorer quality interactions to constrained employment opportunities and a decreased likelihood of receiving life-saving emergency medical treatments.

    “accumulating evidence reveals that implicit biases are linked to discriminatory outcomes ranging from the seemingly mundane, such as poorer quality interactions (McConnell & Leibold, 2001), to the obviously consequential, such as constrained employment opportunities (Bertrand & Malainathan, 2004) and a decreased likelihood of receiving life-saving emergency medical treatments (Green et al., 2007).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites McConnell & Leibold, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bertrand & Malainathan, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Green et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Implicit biases persist and are powerful determinants of behavior because people lack personal awareness of them and they can occur despite conscious nonprejudiced attitudes or intentions.

    “Many theorists argue that implicit biases persist and are powerful determinants of behavior precisely because people lack personal awareness of them and they can occur despite conscious nonprejudiced attitudes or intentions”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bargh, 1999

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Devine, 1989 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Easy-to-implement strategies such as taking the perspective of stigmatized others and imagining counter-stereotypic examples lead to substantial reductions in implicit bias, at least for a short time (up to 24 hours).

    “These efforts have yielded a number of easy-to-implement strategies, such as taking the perspective of stigmatized others (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) and imagining counter-stereotypic examples (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001; Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001), that lead to substantial reductions in implicit bias, at least for a short time (i.e., up to 24 hours).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Premisecitation

    Overcoming prejudice is a protracted process that requires considerable effort in the pursuit of a nonprejudiced goal.

    “Devine’s habit-breaking analysis of prejudice reduction, which argues that overcoming prejudice is a protracted process that requires considerable effort in the pursuit of a nonprejudiced goal”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Devine, 1989 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Devine & Monteith, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Devine et al., 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Black people face continuing discrimination and have more adverse outcomes than White people across a variety of domains related to success and well-being.

    “widespread evidence suggests that Black people face continuing discrimination and have more adverse outcomes than White people across a variety of domains related to success and well-being”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Bertrand & Malainathan, 2004

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Bradford, Newkirk, & Holden, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Mitchell, Haw, Pfeiffer, & Meissner, 2005

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The findings provide an important demonstration that an intervention can engage the long-term regulation of implicit bias, as well as preliminary evidence that the regulation occurs through the use of strategies.

    “we believe that our findings provide an important demonstration that an intervention can engage the long-term regulation of implicit bias, as well as some preliminary evidence that the regulation occurs through the use of strategies.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants’ free-response descriptions of strategy use accurately reflect their actual use of strategies.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    The intervention seems to increase both personal awareness of one's bias and a general concern about discrimination in society.

    “The intervention thus seems to increase both personal awareness of one’s bias and a general concern about discrimination in society.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Attrition rates were low, never exceeding 10% at any time point.

    “Attrition rates were low, never exceeding 10% at any time point.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning

    Week 2 concern, and not baseline concern, moderated the effect of the intervention, suggesting that concern is not important when bias-reducing strategies are learned, but that it is important afterwards, when people become aware of personal or societal expressions of bias and must translate their knowledge of bias-reducing strategies into action.

    “Given that week 2 concern, and not baseline concern, moderated the effect of the intervention, this finding also suggests that concern is not important when bias-reducing strategies are learned, but that it is important afterwards, when people become aware of personal or societal expressions of bias and must translate their knowledge of bias-reducing strategies into action.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The motivation to break the prejudice habit stems from two sources: awareness of one's biases and concern about the consequences of one's biases.

    “Devine and colleagues (Devine & Monteith, 1993; Plant & Devine, 2009) argue that the motivation to break the prejudice habit stems from two sources. First, people must be aware of their biases and, second, they must be concerned about the consequences of their biases before they will be motivated to exert effort to eliminate them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Devine & Monteith, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Plant & Devine, 2009

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    To have a reduction in implicit race bias, participants had not only to perceive opportunities to implement the strategies and view the strategies as effective, but also to believe that they were likely to use them.

    “Thus, to have a reduction in implicit race bias, it appears that participants had not only to perceive opportunities to implement the strategies and view the strategies as effective, but also to believe that they were likely to use them.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    People need to know when biased responses are likely to occur and how to replace those biased responses with responses more consistent with their goals.

    “Furthermore, people need to know when biased responses are likely to occur and how to replace those biased responses with responses more consistent with their goals.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    When people who endorse values opposed to prejudice act with prejudice, they experience guilt, which instigates self-regulatory efforts to disrupt automatic bias and prevent future expressions of bias.

    “when these people act with prejudice, they experience guilt (Devine et al., 1991), which instigates self-regulatory efforts to disrupt automatic bias and prevent future expressions of bias”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Devine et al., 1991 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Amodio et al., 2007 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Monteith, 1993 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    The Black-White IAT has good psychometric properties and is linked to basic neural and affective processes relevant to implicit race bias.

    “The IAT is a dual-categorization task that has good psychometric properties (Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001; Hofmann et al., 2005) and is linked to basic neural and affective processes relevant to implicit race bias (Cunningham, Raye, & Johnson, 2004; Phelps et al., 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Cunningham, Preacher, & Banaji, 2001 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Hofmann et al., 2005 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Cunningham, Raye, & Johnson, 2004 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    In intergroup contexts, the IAT is a strong predictor of discriminatory behavior and a better predictor than parallel explicit measures.

    “in intergroup contexts, the IAT is a strong predictor of discriminatory behavior and a better predictor than parallel explicit measures (Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009; but see Blanton et al., 2009 for an opposing view).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Greenwald, Poehlman, Uhlmann, & Banaji, 2009 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation

    Perspective taking increases psychological closeness to the stigmatized group, which ameliorates automatic group-based evaluations.

    “Perspective taking increases psychological closeness to the stigmatized group, which ameliorates automatic group-based evaluations (Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data

    Attrition rates did not vary across condition at any time point, all ps > .23.

    “attrition rates did not vary across condition at any time point, all ps > .23”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The intervention caused people to become more aware of their personal bias, while leaving people's standards for behavior in prejudice-relevant situations unchanged.

    “As a set, the analyses on shoulds, woulds, and prejudice-relevant discrepancies suggest that the intervention caused people to become more aware of their personal bias, while leaving people’s standards for behavior in prejudice-relevant situations unchanged.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation

    Increased contact can ameliorate implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering the cognitive representations of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group.

    “Increased contact can ameliorate implicit bias through a wide variety of mechanisms, including altering the cognitive representations of the group or by directly improving evaluations of the group (Pettigrew, 1998; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pettigrew, 1998 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006 source

      Not checked in the free run.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Study design and conductown data

    Participants were randomly assigned to either a control condition (n = 38) or an intervention condition (n = 53).

    “Participants were randomly assigned to either a control condition (n = 38) or an intervention condition (n = 53)”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    The word frequency and likelihood findings, combined with the findings about change in implicit bias, personal awareness, and concern, support the prejudice habit model and other dual-process models that identify effort as necessary for implicit bias reduction.

    “The word frequency and likelihood findings, combined with the findings about change in implicit bias, personal awareness, and concern, support the prejudice habit model and other dual-process models that identify effort as necessary for implicit bias reduction (Devine, 1989; Devine & Monteith, 1993; Smith & DeCoster, 2000; Strack & Deutsch, 2004).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Devine, 1989 source

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Devine & Monteith, 1993

      Not checked in the free run.

    • cites Smith & DeCoster, 2000

      Not checked in the free run.

    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.
    • Rests on an assumption: Participants’ free-response descriptions of strategy use accurately reflect their actual use of strategies.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data

    This study presents the first intervention of its kind, one that, using a randomized controlled design, produces a reduction in implicit race bias that endures for at least two months.

    “In sum, this study presents the first intervention of its kind, one that, using a randomized controlled design, produces a reduction in implicit race bias that endures for at least two months.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.
34 of 34

  • The authors state this as an assumption.

    In the Black-White IAT, to the extent that negative valence is associated with Black people and positive valence with White people, compatible trials are easier than incompatible trials.

    “Underlying the race IAT is the assumption that, to the extent that negative valence is associated with Black people (and positive valence with White people), when Black faces and unpleasant words (and White faces and pleasant words) are paired together on the same response key (compatible trials), the task should be easier than with the reverse pairings (incompatible trials).”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Extant research has not yet examined whether interventions can produce long-term implicit bias reductions, nor clearly specified the type of effort required to yield such reductions.

    “Although this evidence is consistent with the prejudice habit-breaking framework, extant research has not yet examined whether interventions can produce long-term implicit bias reductions, nor has it clearly specified the type of effort required to yield such reductions.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The IAT D-score is a valid measure of implicit race bias.

    “The intervention had a lasting effect on one measure of implicit race bias.”
    “indicating that people high in concern about discrimination at week 2 retained the reductions in IAT bias 8 weeks after the intervention.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Participants’ free-response descriptions of strategy use accurately reflect their actual use of strategies.

    “Participants’ descriptions of their strategy use were rich and complex.”
    “we used a text mining approach to calculate frequencies of theoretically important word stems in the descriptions.”
4 of 4

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?

  • Non-black adults could be motivated to increase their awareness of racial bias, their concerns about the effects of such bias and their willingness to implement strategies to reduce such bias.

    “One study of university students documented that non-black adults could be motivated to increase their awareness of racial bias, their concerns about the effects of such bias and their willingness to implement strategies to reduce such bias [77].”

    From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [77]

  • Implicit biases can be viewed as deeply engrained habits that can be replaced by learning multiple new prejudice-reducing strategies including stereotype replacement, counter-stereotype imaging, individuation, perspective taking and increasing interracial contact.

    “These researchers viewed implicit biases as deeply engrained habits that can be replaced by learning multiple new prejudice-reducing strategies including stereotype replacement, counter-stereotype imaging, individuation, perspective taking and increasing interracial contact.”

    From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [77]

  • These strategies reduced bias in participants and the effect remained evident three months later.

    “The study found that these strategies reduced bias in participants and that this effect remained evident three months later.”

    From Reducing Racial Inequities in Health: Using What We Already Know to Take Action (2019) · cites this paper as [77]

Statistics that don’t add up

Each reported p-value recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom.

  • Inconsistent p-value across alpha = .05: t(48) = -2.03, p = .051

    Major

    The paper reports p = .051 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .048 (two-tailed). The two fall on opposite sides of alpha = .05. The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .051 · recomputed p = .048

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(86) = -2.90, p = .009

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .009 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .005 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .005

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(89) = 2.10, p = .042

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .042 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .039 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .042 · recomputed p = .039

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(50) = -2.40, p = .021

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .021 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .020 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .020

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(49) = -2.66, p = .012

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .012 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .011 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .011

  • Inconsistent p-value: t(49) = -2.40, p = .028

    Minor

    The paper reports p = .028 here; recomputing from the test statistic and its degrees of freedom gives p = .020 (two-tailed). The check cannot tell whether the statistic or the p-value is the misprint.

    Reported p = .028 · recomputed p = .020

6 of 6

Statistics recomputed

Every reported test result, recomputed from its test statistic and degrees of freedom. A result shows as not adding up only once an independent check has confirmed it.

  • Doesn’t add upt(48) = -2.03reported p = .051 · recomputed p = .048The two fall on opposite sides of .05

    “t(48) = -2.03, p = .051”

  • Doesn’t add upt(89) = 2.1reported p = .042 · recomputed p = .039

    “t(89) = 2.10, p = .042”

  • Doesn’t add upt(86) = -2.9reported p = .009 · recomputed p = .005

    “t(86) = -2.90, p = .009”

  • Doesn’t add upt(50) = -2.4reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(50) = -2.40, p = .021”

  • Doesn’t add upt(49) = -2.4reported p = .028 · recomputed p = .020

    “t(49) = -2.40, p = .028”

  • Doesn’t add upt(49) = -2.66reported p = .012 · recomputed p = .011

    “t(49) = -2.66, p = .012”

  • Consistentt(88) = -2.82reported p = .006 · recomputed p = .006

    “t(88) = -2.82, p = .006”

  • Consistentt(88) = 0.82reported p = .42 · recomputed p = .414

    “t(88) = .82, p = .42”

  • Consistentt(88) = 2.24reported p = .028 · recomputed p = .028

    “t(88) = 2.24, p = .028”

  • Consistentt(89) = -0.22reported p = .83 · recomputed p = .826

    “t(89) = -.22, p = .83”

  • Consistentt(88) = 2.35reported p = .021 · recomputed p = .021

    “t(88) = 2.35, p = .021”

  • Consistentt(88) = -0.6reported p = .55 · recomputed p = .550

    “t(88) = -.60, p = .55”

  • Consistentt(88) = 2.31reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .023

    “t(88) = 2.31, p = .024”

  • Consistentt(88) = -0.93reported p = .36 · recomputed p = .355

    “t(88) = -.93, p = .36”

  • Consistentt(88) = 1.93reported p = .057 · recomputed p = .057

    “t(88) = 1.93, p = .057”

  • Consistentt(88) = -0.67reported p = .5 · recomputed p = .505

    “t(88) = -.67, p = .50”

  • Consistentt(88) = -0.37reported p = .72 · recomputed p = .712

    “t(88) = -.37, p = .72”

  • Consistentt(86) = -2.46reported p = .016 · recomputed p = .016

    “t(86) = -2.46, p = .016”

  • Consistentt(86) = -0.082reported p = .94 · recomputed p = .935

    “t(86) = -.082, p = .94”

  • Consistentt(86) = 0.55reported p = .59 · recomputed p = .584

    “t(86) = .55, p = .59”

  • Consistentt(82) = -2.31reported p = .024 · recomputed p = .023

    “t(82) = -2.31, p = .024”

  • Consistentt(50) = -3.18reported p = .003 · recomputed p = .003

    “t(50) = -3.18, p = .003”

  • Consistentt(50) = -0.69reported p = .5 · recomputed p = .493

    “t(50) = -.69, p = .50”

  • Consistentt(50) = -1.86reported p = .069 · recomputed p = .069

    “t(50) = -1.86, p = .069”

  • Consistentt(50) = -2.47reported p = .017 · recomputed p = .017

    “t(50) = -2.47, p = .017”

25 of 25

Self-check

Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.

Each contradiction between two passages listed here was confirmed by an independent check.

  • The number of strategies changes from five to six

    Minor

    The training section says participants were taught five strategies, but the strategy-measures section says responses were averaged across six techniques.

  • Discrepancies are attributed to the wrong assessment weeks

    Minor

    The methods place the post-intervention explicit assessments, which include prejudice-relevant discrepancies, at weeks 2 and 6. The results instead describe the discrepancy effect at weeks 4 and 8, when the IAT was assessed.

  • Baseline racial-attitudes mean exceeds the scale maximum

    Minor

    The Attitudes Towards Blacks items are scored from 1 to 7 and averaged, so the reported baseline mean of 7.57 is impossible on the stated scale.

3 of 3

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. L.
Affiliations
University of Wisconsin–Madison (US)
Corresponding author
Devine, Patricia G.
ORCID
Venue
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
Publisher
Elsevier BV
Published
2012-11
Volume
48
Issue
6
Pages
1267-1278
ISSN
0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
DOI
10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
PMC
PMC3603687
OpenAlex
W2025640120
Semantic Scholar
6d2d8282627bfcaf933e3d68d3e9c170b75f2f1f
Cited by
1,259
References
69
Citations by year
2026: 82 · 2025: 140 · 2024: 111 · 2023: 104 · 2022: 136 · 2021: 127 · 2020: 155 · 2019: 112 · 2018: 90 · 2017: 70 · 2016: 53 · 2015: 37 · 2014: 26 · 2013: 13 · 2012: 1
FWCI
81.23
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
  • Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (acceptedVersion)
  • Journal of the Arkansas Academy of Science (submittedVersion, cc-by-nd)
Funders
National Institutes of Health (R01 GM088477)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Names, Identity, and Discrimination Research
Keywords
prejudice reduction, unintentional discrimination, long-term intervention effects

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.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-09.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-09.

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