Reducing defensive responding to implicit bias feedback: On the role of perceived moral threat and efficacy to change
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
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?
Correcting misperceptions runs the risk of provoking additional efforts at ego-justification if not implemented carefully and subtly.
“However, the latter run the risk of provoking additional efforts at ego-justification if they are not implemented carefully and subtly133,134.”
From Cognitive–motivational mechanisms of political polarization in social-communicative contexts (2022) · cites this paper as [134]
The citation lists haven’t been fetched yet
References 93 · Cited by 35
- Authors
- Vitriol, J. A., & Moskowitz, G. B.
- Affiliations
- Harvard University (US)
- Lehigh University (US)
- Corresponding author
- Vitriol, Joseph A.
- Venue
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
- Publisher
- Elsevier BV
- Published
- 2021-09
- Volume
- 96
- Pages
- 104165
- ISSN
- 0022-1031 (ISSN-L)
- OpenAlex
- W3172538725
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 93
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 6 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 6 · 2022: 11
- FWCI
- 9.35
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- closed
- Licence
- Locations
- Journal of Experimental Social Psychology (publishedVersion)
- Funders
- University of Minnesota
- Lehigh University
- Society for Personality and Social Psychology
- Topics
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
- Life Sciences › Neuroscience › Cognitive Neuroscience › Psychology of Moral and Emotional Judgment
- Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
- Keywords
- implicit bias, defensive responding, bias awareness, culpability, perceived efficacy, egalitarian values, self-protection, bias reduction interventions
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.
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
