CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 241

The DOI matches its Crossref record; 3 of the 3 references it cites were found in a registry or an index.

Ironic Effects of Antiprejudice Messages: How Motivational Interventions Can Reduce (but Also Increase) Prejudice

Legault, Lisa, Gutsell, Jennifer N., Inzlicht, Michael·2011·Psychological Science
DOI 10.1177/0956797611427918
Open this paper in CoChat — free account

Abstract

Although prejudice-reduction policies and interventions abound, is it possible that some of them result in the precise opposite of their intended effect—an increase in prejudice? We examined this question by exploring the impact of motivation-based prejudice-reduction interventions and assessing whether certain popular practices might in fact increase prejudice. In two experiments, participants received detailed information on, or were primed with, the goal of prejudice reduction; the information and primes either encouraged autonomous motivation to regulate prejudice or emphasized the societal requirement to control prejudice. Ironically, motivating people to reduce prejudice by emphasizing external control produced more explicit and implicit prejudice than did not intervening at all. Conversely, participants in whom autonomous motivation to regulate prejudice was induced displayed less explicit and implicit prejudice compared with no-treatment control participants. We outline strategies for effectively reducing prejudice and discuss the detrimental consequences of enforcing antiprejudice standards.

Overview

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.1177/0956797611427918

Cites

3 of 3 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

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

Verification

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?

  • When white subjects read anti-prejudice materials and feel pressured to agree, their anti-black prejudice increases.

    “For instance, when white subjects read anti-prejudice materials and feel pressured to agree, their anti-black prejudice increases (Legault et al., 2011).”

    From Are Diversity Programs Merely Ceremonial? Evidence-Free Institutionalization (2017) · cites this paper as Legault et al., 2011

Citations

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Research works printed but not linked: 24

  1. 10.1037/0022-3514.84.4.738 · DOI · Paper page
  2. 10.1037/0022-3514.51.6.1173 · DOI · Paper page
  3. 10.1111/j.1467-9280.1991.tb00108.x · DOI
  4. Brehm S. S., 1981, Psychological reactance: A theory of freedom and control
  5. 10.1037/0022-3514.91.4.750 · DOI
  6. 10.1002/9781444325447.ch14 · DOI
  7. deCharms R., 1968, Personal causation
  8. 10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 · DOI · Paper page
  9. Deci E. L., 2002, Handbook of self-determination research
  10. 10.1037/0708-5591.49.1.14 · DOI · Paper page
  11. 10.1037/0022-3514.82.5.835 · DOI · Paper page
  12. Gaertner S. L., 1984, Reducing intergroup bias: The common ingroup identity model
  13. 10.1037/0022-3514.74.6.1464 · DOI · Paper page
  14. Hansen F., 2003, Workforce, 824, 28
  15. 10.1111/0162-895X.00281 · DOI
  16. 10.1037/0022-3514.92.6.957 · DOI
  17. 10.1007/s11031-008-9110-4 · DOI
  18. 10.1177/0146167206298564 · DOI
  19. 10.1037/0022-3514.95.5.1080 · DOI
  20. 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607 · DOI · Paper page
  21. 10.1037/a0022159 · DOI
  22. 10.1037/0022-3514.75.3.811 · DOI
  23. 10.1006/jesp.2001.1478 · DOI · Paper page
  24. 10.1177/0146167210378018 · DOI

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Metadata

Authors
Legault, L., Gutsell, J. N., & Inzlicht, M.
Affiliations
University of Toronto Scarborough
Venue
Psychological Science
Publisher
SAGE Publications
Published
2011-11-28
Volume
22
Issue
12
Pages
1472-1477
ISSN
  • 0956-7976
  • 1467-9280
DOI
10.1177/0956797611427918
Cited by
241
References
3
Language
en
Licence
journals.sagepub.com/page/policies/text-and-data-mining-license (tdm)

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