Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention

Abstract

We developed a multi-faceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention to produce long-term reductions in implicit race bias. The intervention is based on the premise that implicit bias is like a habit that can be reduced through a combination of awareness of implicit bias, concern about the effects of that bias, and the application of strategies to reduce bias. In a 12-week longitudinal study, people who received the intervention showed dramatic reductions in implicit race bias. People who were concerned about discrimination or who reported using the strategies showed the greatest reductions. The intervention also led to increases in concern about discrimination and personal awareness of bias over the duration of the study. People in the control group showed none of the above effects. Our results raise the hope of reducing persistent and unintentional forms of discrimination that arise from implicit bias.

Keywords: implicit bias; intervention; prejudice; reduction; self-regulation; stereotyping.

Figure 1

Study timeline. The Black–White Implicit Association Test (IAT) was administered at 3 time points: just prior to the intervention manipulation and 4 and 8 weeks after the manipulation. The explicit measures, consisting of the Attitudes Towards Blacks (ATB) scale, the Internal and External Motivation Scales (IMS and EMS), the prejudice-relevant discrepancies scale, and the concern about discrimination scale, were also administered at three points: 4 weeks prior to the intervention manipulation during a mass survey, and 2 and 6 weeks after the manipulation.

Figure 2

IAT D-scores for intervention and control group participants before the manipulation and 4 and 8 weeks after the manipulation. Higher numbers indicate higher levels of implicit bias. IAT D-scores did not differ before the manipulation, but after the manipulation, participants who received the intervention had lower IAT scores than participants who did not. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the GLM point estimate.

Figure 3

Concern about discrimination by condition 4 weeks before the manipulation and 2 and 6 weeks after the manipulation. Higher numbers indicate higher levels of concern. Concern did not differ by condition before the manipulation, but after the manipulation, participants who received the intervention were more concerned about discrimination than participants who did not. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the GLM point estimate.

Figure 4

Discrepancies between self-reported standards (shoulds) and predicted actual reactions (woulds) to Blacks by condition 4 weeks before the manipulation and 2 and 6 weeks after the manipulation. Higher numbers indicate that participants believe they would react to Blacks with more bias than they believe is appropriate. Discrepancies did not differ by condition before the manipulation, but after the manipulation, participants who received the intervention had larger discrepancies than participants who did not. Error bars represent ±1 standard error of the GLM point estimate

Figure 5

Week 2 concern about discrimination plotted against week 4 (Panel A) and week 8 (Panel B) IAT D-scores with prediction lines from the GLM. Higher numbers indicate higher levels of implicit bias and greater levels of concern. Prediction lines are plotted at ±1standard deviation from the mean on concern. Within the intervention condition, concern was associated with lower IAT scores at weeks 4 and 8. Within the control condition, concern was unrelated to IAT score.