Reducing Implicit Prejudice

Lai, Calvin K.; Hoffman, Kelly M.; Nosek, Brian A.

doi:10.2139/ssrn.2089158

Cited by 36 publications

(43 citation statements)

References 149 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In particular, studies have shown that exposing adults to famous admired Black exemplars and disliked White exemplars reduces implicit pro‐White bias (Dasgupta & Greenwald, ; Joy‐Gaba & Nosek, ; Lai et al., ). The efficacy of this intervention among adults is believed to stem from a shift in the social context that places emphasis on individuals who contrast with usual stereotypes (Lai, Hoffman, & Nosek, ). As such, it has been suggested that this shift primes subtypes (e.g., “wealthy Black person”; “helpful Black person”) rather than leading adults to revise their prior beliefs about the larger groups (i.e., Black people).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Children's Implicit Racial Bias Through Exposure to Positive Out‐Group Exemplars

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Studies with adults suggest that implicit preferences favoring White versus Black individuals can be reduced through exposure to positive Black exemplars. However, it remains unclear whether developmental differences exist in the capacity for these biases to be changed. This study included 369 children and examined whether their implicit racial bias would be reduced following exposure to positive Black exemplars. Results showed that children's implicit pro‐White bias was reduced following exposure to positive Black exemplars, but only for older children (Mage = ~10 years). Younger children's (Mage = ~7 years) implicit bias was not affected by this intervention. These results suggest developmental differences in the malleability of implicit racial biases and point to possible age differences in intervention effectiveness.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Reducing Children's Implicit Racial Bias Through Exposure to Positive Out‐Group Exemplars

2016

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…One such factor is the prevalence of implicit, or unconscious, prejudice against out‐groups. Substantial work with adults points to the possibility that these implicit cognitions can be modified, but the magnitude of this change is quite small (for a review, see Lai, Hoffman & Nosek, ; Gawronski & Bodenhausen, ). For example, the average effect size of successful implicit bias change in a recent meta‐analysis examining the malleability of implicit biases in adults was d = .36 (Lai, Marini, Lehr, Cerruti, Shin et al ., ).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Malleability of implicit associations across development

Gonzalez

Dunlop

Baron

2016

Developmental Science

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The prevalence of implicit intergroup bias in adults underscores the importance of knowing when during development such biases are most amenable to change. Although research suggests that implicit intergroup bias undergoes little change across development, no studies have directly examined whether developmental differences exist in the capacity for novel implicit associations to form or change. The present study examined this issue among children ages 5-12. Results from over 800 children provided evidence that novel implicit associations formed quickly, regardless of child age, association type (evaluative or non-evaluative) or the target of the association (social or non-social). Moreover, the magnitude of these changes was comparable across conditions. Coupled with similar findings among adults, these data underscore the importance of first impressions in shaping implicit intergroup bias and provide further evidence that the acquisition of implicit associations is governed by a domain-general mechanism that may be fully in place by age 5.

show abstract

“…Most bias is subconscious and these pervasive, implicit biases even affect the actions of individuals who are not overtly biased (Lai et al, 2013; Staats et al, 2016). Our actions are also strongly affected by social prestige mechanisms that encompass non-meritocratic factors such as the wealth, reputation and selectivity of institutions (Bastedo & Bowman, 2010; Burris, 2004; Clauset et al, 2001).…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

High cost of bias: Diminishing marginal returns on NIH grant funding to institutions

Wahls

2018

Preprint

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

16Scientific output is not a linear function of amounts of federal grant support to individual 17 investigators. As funding per investigator increases beyond a certain point, productivity 18 decreases. This study reports that such diminishing marginal returns also apply for National 19Institutes of Health (NIH) research project grant funding to institutions. Analyses of data (2006-20 2015) for a representative cross-section of institutions, whose amounts of funding ranged from 21 $3 million to $440 million per year, revealed robust inverse correlations between funding (per 22 institution, per award, per investigator) and scientific output (publication productivity and citation 23 impact productivity). Interestingly, prestigious institutions had on average 65% higher grant 24 application success rates and 50% larger award sizes, whereas less-prestigious institutions 25 produced 65% more publications and had a 35% higher citation impact per dollar of funding. 26These findings suggest that implicit biases and social prestige mechanisms (e.g., the Matthew 27 effect) have a powerful impact on where NIH grant dollars go and the net return on taxpayers' 28 investments. They support evidence-based changes in funding policy geared towards a more 29 equitable, more diverse and more productive distribution of federal support for scientific 30 research. Success rate/productivity metrics developed for this study provide an impartial, 31 empirically based mechanism to do so. 32 33 Keywords 34 35 Science policy; peer review; bias; implicit bias; social prestige mechanisms; Matthew effect 36 37Call-Out Quotes 38 39 "Giving the lion's share of grant dollars to a small minority of institutions seems 40 counterproductive and wasteful-whether or not the disparities in funding are driven by bias." 41 42 "A more egalitarian distribution of funding among institutions would yield greater collective gains 43 for the research enterprise and the taxpayers who support it." 48 types of investigators supported, and the regions in which research is conducted. Multiple 49 levels of diversity increase the likelihood of scientific breakthroughs and maximize the return on 50 taxpayers' investments in federally sponsored research (Lorsch, 2015; Peifer, 2017a). 51Unfortunately, there are barriers to maximizing diversity. 53A landmark study in Science reported that black investigators are much less likely to get their 54 National Institutes of Health (NIH) research grant applications funded than white applicants, 55 even after for controlling for other factors (Ginther et al., 2011). There are also large differences 56 in success rates for investigators grouped by age (Levitt & Levitt, 2017). While there does not 57 seem to be a gender gap for new NIH grants, female applicants have lower success rates than 58 their male counterparts for competitive renewals (Kaatz et al., 2016; Magua et al., 2017; 59 Pohlhaus et al., 2011). There are also large differences in success rates for investigators 60 grouped by state (Wahls, 2016). The differences in suc...

show abstract

Reducing Implicit Prejudice

Cited by 36 publications

References 149 publications

Reducing Children's Implicit Racial Bias Through Exposure to Positive Out‐Group Exemplars

Reducing Children's Implicit Racial Bias Through Exposure to Positive Out‐Group Exemplars

Malleability of implicit associations across development

High cost of bias: Diminishing marginal returns on NIH grant funding to institutions

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About