Cited by 161Social and Intergroup PsychologyRacial and Ethnic Identity ResearchDiversity and Career in Medicine

Implicit Stereotyping and Medical Decisions: Unconscious Stereotype Activation in Practitioners' Thoughts About African Americans

Open access
Moskowitz, Gordon B., Stone, Jeff, Childs, Amanda·2012·American Journal of Public Health

Abstract

OBJECTIVES: We investigated whether stereotypes unconsciously influence the thinking and behavior of physicians, as they have been shown to do in other professional settings, such as among law enforcement personnel and teachers. METHODS: We conducted 2 studies to examine whether stereotypes are implicitly activated in physicians. Study 1 assessed what diseases and treatments doctors associate with African Americans. Study 2 presented these (and control terms) to doctors as part of a computerized task. Subliminal images of African American and White men appeared prior to each word, and reaction times to words were recorded. RESULTS: When primed with an African American face, doctors reacted more quickly for stereotypical diseases, indicating an implicit association of certain diseases with African Americans. These comprised not only diseases African Americans are genetically predisposed to, but also conditions and social behaviors with no biological association (e.g., obesity, drug abuse). CONCLUSIONS: We found implicit stereotyping among physicians; faces they never consciously saw altered performance. This suggests that diagnoses and treatment of African American patients may be biased, even in the absence of the practitioner's intent or awareness.

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.2105/ajph.2011.300591

Cites

35 of 35 references verified0 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Claims the paper makes

The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.

Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.

A few free checks a day · papers already verified open instantly · results are public

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 two priming studies involved very small samples and were more exploratory than result-seeking.

    “The two priming studies involved very small samples and were more exploratory than result-seeking [20, 21].”

    From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Methods report small samples: 16 doctors in Study 1 and 11 in Study 2 (page unavailable). But Study 1 was a survey, not a priming experiment, and the Study 2 Methods specify a predicted priming effect rather than describing the experiment as primarily exploratory. (LLM, conf=0.88)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
  • Another exploratory study found that many diseases were associated with African-Americans that did not match prevalence data, such as drug abuse.

    “Another exploratory study looked at the diseases that were stereotypically associated with African-Americans and found that many diseases were associated with African-Americans that did not match prevalence data, such as drug abuse [20].”

    From Implicit bias in healthcare professionals: a systematic review (2017) · cites this paper as [20]

    The Results and Discussion (Study 1; page numbers unavailable) show that physicians listed numerous conditions as stereotypically associated with African Americans. The Discussion compares the drug-abuse stereotype with prevalence evidence and calls it inaccurate, but does not establish that many of the listed conditions conflict with prevalence data. (LLM, conf=0.87)

    Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

Self-check

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

The self-check needs the paper’s full text.

Cites

Flagged first, then by citations

Cited by

Sorted by citations

Authors
Moskowitz, G. B., Stone, J., & Childs, A.
Affiliations
University of Arizona (US)
Venue
American Journal of Public Health
Published
2012-05
Volume
102
Issue
5
Pages
996-1001
ISSN
  • 0090-0036 (ISSN-L)
  • 1541-0048
OpenAlex
W2038320932
Cited by
161
References
35
Citations by year
2026: 4 · 2025: 12 · 2024: 10 · 2023: 15 · 2022: 20 · 2021: 26 · 2020: 13 · 2019: 10 · 2018: 10 · 2017: 7 · 2016: 8 · 2015: 7 · 2014: 9 · 2013: 7 · 2012: 2
FWCI
26.37
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Locations
  • American Journal of Public Health (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed Central (publishedVersion)
  • PubMed (publishedVersion)
  • Europe PMC (PubMed Central) (acceptedVersion)
  • RePEc: Research Papers in Economics (submittedVersion)
Funders
National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities (R01MD005902)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Social and Intergroup Psychology
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Racial and Ethnic Identity Research
  • Social Sciences › Gender Studies › Diversity and Career in Medicine
Keywords
racial bias in medicine, African American patients, physicians, subliminal priming, face images, racial disparities in health care
MeSH terms
Attitude of Health Personnel, Black or African American, Communication, Decision Making, Health Personnel, Humans, Physician-Patient Relations, Stereotyping, 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