A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures.

Abstract

Using a novel technique known as network meta-analysis, we synthesized evidence from 492 studies (87,418 participants) to investigate the effectiveness of procedures in changing implicit measures, which we define as response biases on implicit tasks. We also evaluated these procedures' effects on explicit and behavioral measures. We found that implicit measures can be changed, but effects are often relatively weak (|ds| < .30). Most studies focused on producing short-term changes with brief, single-session manipulations. Procedures that associate sets of concepts, invoke goals or motivations, or tax mental resources changed implicit measures the most, whereas procedures that induced threat, affirmation, or specific moods/emotions changed implicit measures the least. Bias tests suggested that implicit effects could be inflated relative to their true population values. Procedures changed explicit measures less consistently and to a smaller degree than implicit measures and generally produced trivial changes in behavior. Finally, changes in implicit measures did not mediate changes in explicit measures or behavior. Our findings suggest that changes in implicit measures are possible, but those changes do not necessarily translate into changes in explicit measures or behavior.

Breaking the prejudice habit: Mechanisms, timecourse, and longevity

“…However, the aspects that are most central to the self-concept, such as values, are highly resistant to environmentally induced change precisely because such changes require the reorganization of other components lower in the hierarchy. By the same token, the more peripheral aspects of the self, such as stereotypic associations, are highly susceptible to environmental influence because they require no such reorganization (Forscher, Lai et al, under review). 7 …”

“…The specter of unintentional discrimination has inspired widespread calls from researchers, scholars, and public policy officials to develop effective interventions to reduce and eliminate the negative effects of unintentional bias (e.g., Fiske, 1998; Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2003). Revealing the scope of the response to this call, a recent meta-analysis uncovered 573 experiments testing methods to change implicit bias (Forscher, Lai, et al, under review). Though many interventions reduced implicit bias, very few (6.6% of the meta-analytic samples) have been tested over time.…”

Racial Disparities in the Criminal Justice System: Prevalence, Causes, and a Search for Solutions

“…Moreover, self‐regulation of bias takes time and effort that busy decision makers may not have (e.g., when making quick decisions about whether to shoot suspects). Thus, although implicit bias may be reduced, the effect sizes associated with these reductions are relatively small and the reductions do not translate into changes in explicit bias or behavior (Forscher et al., ).…”

Resistance as Sacrifice: Toward an Ascetic Antiracism

“…; Dobbin and Kalev ; Forscher et al. ; Wilton, Apfelbaum, and Good ), because the assumptions they are based on are false. As we have seen, awareness of systemic racism does not cleanly translate into actual behaviors that reduce inequality—neither does supporting racial egalitarianism through words, beliefs, or feelings.…”