CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 1,376Social and Intergroup PsychologyDeath Anxiety and Social ExclusionPsychology of Social Influence

Prejudice Reduction: What Works? A Review and Assessment of Research and Practice

Paluck, Elizabeth Levy, Green, Donald P.·2009·Annual Review of Psychology
DOI 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

This article reviews the observational, laboratory, and field experimental literatures on interventions for reducing prejudice. Our review places special emphasis on assessing the methodological rigor of existing research, calling attention to problems of design and measurement that threaten both internal and external validity. Of the hundreds of studies we examine, a small fraction speak convincingly to the questions of whether, why, and under what conditions a given type of intervention works. We conclude that the causal effects of many widespread prejudice-reduction interventions, such as workplace diversity training and media campaigns, remain unknown. Although some intergroup contact and cooperation interventions appear promising, a much more rigorous and broad-ranging empirical assessment of prejudice-reduction strategies is needed to determine what works.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607

Cites

173 of 173 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Claims the paper makes

This paper’s full text isn’t openly available, 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?

  • Most prejudices are negative biases toward a category of individuals considered an outgroup and involve both cognitive beliefs and affective aspects.

    “Most prejudices can be described as negative biases toward a category of individuals who are considered to be an outgroup; they involve both cognitive (beliefs) and affective aspects (Allport, 1954; Tropp and Pettigrew, 2005; Paluck and Green, 2009).”

    From “Real men in the battlefield”: a hybrid AI–discourse analysis of online homophobia and transphobia (2026) · cites this paper as Paluck and Green, 2009

  • Peer influence may be effective in shaping norms in social media environments when the peers are credible members of one's in-group.

    “This suggests that peer influence may be effective in shaping norms in social media environments when the peers are credible members of one's in-group (Paluck & Green 2009, Paluck et al. 2021).”

    From Social Media and Morality. (2024) · cites this paper as Paluck & Green 2009

  • Field interventions demonstrating the efficacy of brief instances of positive contact for durable attitude change are still rare.

    “field interventions demonstrating the efficacy of brief instances of positive contact for durable attitude change are still rare (25, 28).”

    From A field experiment on community policing and police legitimacy (2019) · cites this paper as [28]

  • Such enduring reductions in implicit bias following a bias reduction intervention are unprecedented in the literature.

    “Such enduring reductions in implicit bias following a bias reduction intervention are unprecedented in the literature (Paluck & Green, 2009).”

    From Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention (2012) · cites this paper as Paluck & Green, 2009

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Related

Authors
Paluck, E. L., & Green, D. P.
Affiliations
  • Harvard University (US)
  • Yale University (US)
ORCID
Venue
Annual Review of Psychology
Publisher
Annual Reviews
Published
2009-01-01
Volume
60
Issue
1
Pages
339-367
ISSN
  • 0066-4308 (ISSN-L)
  • 1545-2085
DOI
10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607
OpenAlex
W2132515171
Semantic Scholar
6b6e3fd463ab3ddf09afe103a45ea37e20697f10
Cited by
1,376
References
173
Citations by year
2026: 69 · 2025: 70 · 2024: 108 · 2023: 103 · 2022: 121 · 2021: 123 · 2020: 146 · 2019: 88 · 2018: 101 · 2017: 82 · 2016: 59 · 2015: 56 · 2014: 70 · 2013: 46 · 2012: 55
FWCI
13.79
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
closed
Locations
  • Annual Review of Psychology (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Psychology › Social Psychology › Death Anxiety and Social Exclusion
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Psychology of Social Influence
Keywords
prejudice reduction, prejudice reduction interventions, intergroup contact, media campaigns, methodological quality, internal and external validity
MeSH terms
Adult, Child, Humans, Prejudice, Research, Social Conformity, Psychological Distance, Social Environment, Social Identification, Social Values, Staff Development, Stereotyping, Workplace, Cultural Diversity, Cultural Competency

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