Cited by 247Cultural Competency in Health CareSocial and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity Research

Non‐conscious bias in medical decision making: what can be done to reduce it?

Open access
Stone, Jeff, Moskowitz, Gordon B·2011·Medical Education

Abstract

Context Non-conscious stereotyping and prejudice contribute to racial and ethnic disparities in health care. Contemporary training in cultural competence is insufficient to reduce these problems because even educated, culturally sensitive, egalitarian individuals can activate and use their biases without being aware they are doing so. However, these problems can be reduced by workshops and learning modules that focus on the psychology of non-conscious bias. THE PSYCHOLOGY OF NON-CONSCIOUS BIAS: Research in social psychology shows that over time stereotypes and prejudices become invisible to those who rely on them. Automatic categorisation of an individual as a member of a social group can unconsciously trigger the thoughts (stereotypes) and feelings (prejudices) associated with that group, even if these reactions are explicitly denied and rejected. This implies that, when activated, implicit negative attitudes and stereotypes shape how medical professionals evaluate and interact with minority group patients. This creates differential diagnosis and treatment, makes minority group patients uncomfortable and discourages them from seeking or complying with treatment. Pitfalls in cultural competence training Cultural competence training involves teaching students to use race and ethnicity to diagnose and treat minority group patients, but to avoid stereotyping them by over-generalising cultural knowledge to individuals. However, the Culturally and Linguistically Appropriate Servic…

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1111/j.1365-2923.2011.04026.x

Cites

9 of 9 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Recomputing p-values needs the paper’s full text.

Claims the paper makes

We couldn’t retrieve this paper’s full text, so its claims and self-check weren’t run. The registry and citation checks still apply.

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?

  • The presence of implicit biases among healthcare professionals and the effect on quality of clinical care is a cause for concern.

    “The presence of implicit biases among healthcare professionals and the effect on quality of clinical care is a cause for concern [13–15].”

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Stone, J., & Moskowitz, G. B.
Affiliations
  • University of Arizona (US)
  • Lehigh University (US)
Corresponding author
Stone, Jeff
Venue
Medical Education
Publisher
Wiley
Published
2011-07-14
Volume
45
Issue
8
Pages
768-776
ISSN
  • 0308-0110 (ISSN-L)
  • 1365-2923
OpenAlex
W1767618000
Cited by
247
References
9
Citations by year
2026: 6 · 2025: 14 · 2024: 14 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 22 · 2021: 18 · 2020: 28 · 2019: 29 · 2018: 16 · 2017: 15 · 2016: 22 · 2015: 21 · 2014: 6 · 2013: 11 · 2012: 6
FWCI
28.82
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • Medical Education (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • University Libraries (University of Maryland) (submittedVersion)
  • Digital Repository at the University of Maryland (University of Maryland College Park)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Cultural Competency in Health Care
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
Keywords
implicit bias, prejudice, racial and ethnic disparities in health care, cultural competence training, clinical decision-making, stereotype suppression, perspective taking
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Education, Medical, Health Personnel, Humans, Minority Groups, Physician-Patient Relations, Prejudice, Social Perception, Stereotyping, Cultural Competency, Healthcare Disparities

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