Expert answer:Critical Review on Experiment:: READ THE EXPERIMEN
Solved by verified expert:Read the article/study and answer all questions.I have attached my rough draft with my professor’s comments on it. Your task is to make the corrections and correct the errors as much as possible.This is a big part of my grade so please take your time to read and understand the content. You do not have to add on to anything that is marked correct. Watch for grammatical and spelling errors. I have also attached a rubric and the instructions for this critical review. Due by Monday Thanks and good luck !
critical_review_rubric.png
instructions_for_critical_review_required__1_.docx
article5_devine_etal_2012_long_term_reduction_in_implicit_race_bias__a_prejudice_habit_breaking_intervention__1_.pdf
critrevdraft_dsmith_vg_nlcomments_1__1_.docx
Unformatted Attachment Preview
This assignment is designed to help you comprehend, critique, and apply findings from academic
journal articles to your understanding of cognitive psychology. It will also prepare you to
become an “intelligent consumer” of psychology research — helping you to understand and apply
psychology research findings to your future career.
Please select one of the following articles as the focus of your critical review (found in the
Journal Articles section of the webcourse):
•
•
•
•
•
Article 1: Meteyard, L., Bahrami, B., & Vigliocco, G. (2007). Motion detection and
motion verbs language affects low-level visual perception. Psychological Science,
18(11), 1007-1013.
Article 2: Remington, A., Swettenham, J., Campbell, R., & Coleman, M. (2009).
Selective attention and perceptual load in autism spectrum disorder. Psychological
Science, 20(11), 1388-1393.
Article 3: Fischer, S., & Born, J. (2009). Anticipated reward enhances offline learning
during sleep. Journal of Experimental Psychology: Learning, Memory, and Cognition,
35(6), 1586.
Article 4: Herbert, D., & Burt, J. S. (2004). What do students remember? Episodic
memory and the development of schematization. Applied Cognitive Psychology, 18(1),
77-88.
Article 5: Devine, P. G., Forscher, P. S., Austin, A. J., & Cox, W. T. (2012). Long-term
reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of
experimental social psychology, 48(6), 1267-1278.
For your critical review, you will conduct a thorough reading of one of the papers listed
above and answer each of the following questions about the study described in your
selected paper:
1. What hypothesis was tested in the study? (2 points)
•
•
“A hypothesis is a logical supposition, a reasonable guess, an educated conjecture. It
provides a tentative explanation for a phenomenon under investigation.” (Leedy and
Ormrod, 2001).
In other words, it is the prediction that the researchers make about the results they will
find.
2. If I had to design an experiment to test this hypothesis, what would I do and why? (3
points)
•
You can either a) propose an entirely different study design or b) an “improved” version
of the design described in your selected article. Improved study designs must explicitly
state what you would do differently.
•
You must explicitly state what your experiment design (or changes to the original
experiment design) would help you learn that the original study could not. For example,
how could your study test the hypothesis more fully?
3. What is/are the independent variable or variables? (2 points)
•
IVs are variables that are predicted to impact the dependent variable(s). IVs can take two
forms:
o Variables manipulated in the experiment by the researchers
o Participant characteristics/groups — these are factors that are not (and often
cannot) be manipulated by the researchers, like age, gender, race, disease status,
etc. but are expected to affect the dependent variable
4. What is/are the dependent variable or variables? (2 points)
•
DVs are measures of participants’ behavior or task performance that are expected to
change based on the study’s independent variables (manipulations and/or participant
characteristics).
5. List at least two control variables. (2 points)
•
•
CVs are factors that might affect the dependent variables, but are not an independent
variable of interest. CVs are held constant (all subjects have variable at same level) so
that participants and their experience in the study are as similar as possible.
Note, control variables and control groups are NOT the same thing. If a study has a
control group, it is part of an independent variable that allows the researchers to make
comparisons across participants (for example, memory performance in dementia group
vs. healthy control group).
6. How would I interpret these results and why? (3 points)
•
•
Here, you must demonstrate your critical thinking and show that you read the research
article.
Justify your answers. Provide solid reasoning.
7. Describe any weaknesses or limitations to this study (2 points)
•
•
Most studies cannot test their hypothesis perfectly.
Whether you found any limitations/weaknesses or not, you must justify your answer and
provide solid reasoning.
**Notes:
•
•
•
•
This assignment will be submitted on a document that does not exceed 2 pages.
APA format and reference pages are not required.
Direct copying of text from any source is not allowed. This should be your own
independent review. All papers will be checked for originality within the class group and
internet databases via Turnitin.
The following file types can be uploaded:
o Microsoft Word (.doc / .docx)
o OpenOffice Text (.odt)
o Google Docs via Google Drive (.gdoc files are NOT acceptable)
o WordPerfect (.wpd)
o PostScript (.ps/.eps)
o Adobe PDF
GOOD LUCK!
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 1267–1278
Contents lists available at SciVerse ScienceDirect
Journal of Experimental Social Psychology
journal homepage: www.elsevier.com/locate/jesp
Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention☆
Patricia G. Devine ⁎, Patrick S. Forscher, Anthony J. Austin 1, William T.L. Cox
Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin, Madison, WI, USA
H I G H L I G H T S
►
►
►
►
We developed an intervention to produce long-term reductions in implicit race bias.
The intervention produced reductions in implicit bias that lasted up to 8 weeks.
The intervention also increased awareness of bias and concern about discrimination.
Our results raise the hope of reducing the pernicious effects of implicit race bias.
a r t i c l e
i n f o
Article history:
Received 28 March 2012
Revised 11 June 2012
Available online 20 July 2012
Keywords:
Prejudice
Stereotyping
Intervention
Reduction
Implicit bias
Self-regulation
a b s t r a c t
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 broken
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.
© 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
Introduction
Despite encouraging trends suggesting that racial prejudice in the U. S.
has waned in the last half century (Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986; Schuman,
Steeh, Bobo, & Krysan, 1997), widespread evidence suggests that Black
people face continuing discrimination and have more adverse outcomes
than White people across a variety of domains related to success and
well-being (e.g., Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004; Bradford, Newkirk, &
Holden, 2009; Mitchell, Haw, Pfeifer, & Meissner, 2005; Steele, 1997;
Vontress, Woodland, & Epp, 2007). The paradox of persistent racial inequalities amid improving racial attitudes has led to a search for factors
underlying ongoing discrimination. Several theorists have implicated
implicit race biases, which are automatically activated and often
☆ We thank Markus Brauer and Carlie Allison for their comments on a previous version of this paper. We also thank Becky McGill, Rachel Nitzarim, Julia Salomon, and
Chelsea Wenzlaff for their help in running the experiment reported in this paper. Preparation of this article was supported by NIH grant R01 GM088477.
⁎ Corresponding author at: Psychology Department, University of Wisconsin‐Madison,
1202 W Johnson St, Madison, WI 53706, USA.
E-mail address: pgdevine@wisc.edu (P.G. Devine).
1
Now at the University of Chicago, Chicago, IL, USA.
0022-1031/$ – see front matter © 2012 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.
doi:10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003
unintentional, as major contributors to the perpetuation of discrimination (e.g., Devine, 1989; Fiske, 1998; Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986).
Supporting this claim, accumulating evidence reveals that implicit
biases are linked to discriminatory outcomes ranging from the seemingly mundane, such as poorer quality interactions (McConnell & Leibold,
2001), to the undeniably consequential, such as constrained employment opportunities (Bertrand & Mullainathan, 2004) and a decreased
likelihood of receiving life-saving emergency medical treatments
(Green et al., 2007). Many theorists argue that implicit biases persist
and are powerful determinants of behavior precisely because people
lack personal awareness of them and they can occur despite conscious
nonprejudiced attitudes or intentions (Bargh, 1999; Devine, 1989;
Gaertner & Dovidio, 1986). This process leads people to be unwittingly
complicit in the perpetuation of discrimination.
The reality of lingering racial disparities, combined with the empirically established links between implicit bias and pernicious discriminatory
outcomes, has led to a clarion call for strategies to reduce these biases
(Fiske, 1998; Smedley, Stith, & Nelson, 2003). In response, the field has
witnessed an explosion of empirical efforts to reduce implicit biases
(Blair, 2002). These efforts have yielded a number of easy-to-implement
strategies, such as taking the perspective of stigmatized others
(Galinsky & Moskowitz, 2000) and imagining counter-stereotypic examples (Blair, Ma, & Lenton, 2001; Dasgupta & Greenwald, 2001), that lead to
1268
P.G. Devine et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 1267–1278
substantial reductions in implicit bias, at least for a short time (i.e., up to
24 hours). These strategies yield reductions in implicit bias even though
people use the strategies at the experimenter’s behest, with no intention
to reduce implicit bias. It is unclear, however, whether such incidental reductions in implicit bias are enduring or whether people could intentionally implement such strategies in the service of a long-term goal to reduce
implicit bias.
Although there is no direct evidence about whether one-shot strategies used at another’s behest could produce enduring change, some
general dual-process theories in psychology (e.g., Epstein, 1994; Smith
& DeCoster, 2000; Strack & Deutsch, 2004) suggest that such reductions
are likely to be highly contextual and short-lived. According to these
theories, implicit and explicit processes are supported by fundamentally different psychological systems. Although the explicit system can
change quickly and is relatively context-independent, the implicit system is highly contextual and only changes in an enduring way after considerable time, effort, and / or intensity of experience. Thus, because
one-shot interventions must counteract a large accretion of associative
learning, they are unlikely to produce enduring change in the implicit
system. Such change is likely only after the application of considerable
goal-directed effort over time.
The preceding analysis is consistent with Devine’s habit-breaking
analysis of prejudice reduction, which argues that overcoming prejudice is a protracted process that requires considerable effort in the
pursuit of a nonprejudiced goal (Devine, 1989; Devine & Monteith,
1993; Devine, Monteith, Zuwerink, & Elliot, 1991; Monteith, 1993).
This model likens implicit biases to deeply entrenched habits developed through socialization experiences. “Breaking the habit” of implicit bias therefore requires learning about the contexts that
activate the bias and how to replace the biased responses with responses that reflect one’s nonprejudiced goals.
Supporting the prejudice habit-breaking framework, considerable
evidence demonstrates that, when they believe they have acted with
bias, people who endorse values opposed to prejudice are motivated
to inhibit the expression of implicit bias by seeking out information
and putting effort into tasks they believe would help them break the
prejudice habit (Amodio, Devine, & Harmon-Jones, 2007; Monteith,
1993; Plant & Devine, 2009). In addition, when these people act with
prejudice, they experience guilt (Devine et al., 1991), which instigates
self-regulatory efforts to disrupt automatic bias and prevent future expressions of bias (Amodio et al., 2007; Monteith, 1993). Although this
evidence is consistent with the prejudice habit-breaking framework,
extant research has not yet examined whether interventions can produce long-term implicit bias reductions, nor has it clearly specified the
type of effort required to yield such reductions. The goal of the present
work is to address these shortcomings and to develop an intervention
that engages intentional effort to produce enduring reductions in implicit race bias.
Multifaceted prejudice habit-breaking intervention
Devine and colleagues (Devine & Monteith, 1993; Plant & Devine,
2009) argue that the motivation to break the prejudice habit stems
from two sources. First, people must be aware of their biases and, second, they must be concerned about the consequences of their biases
before they will be motivated to exert effort to eliminate them. Furthermore, people need to know when biased responses are likely to
occur and how to replace those biased responses with responses
more consistent with their goals.
The present work synthesizes insights from the prejudice habit
model and implicit bias reduction strategies to develop an intervention
to help people reduce implicit biases and “break the prejudice habit”.
The multifaceted nature of the present intervention has conceptual parallels to approaches in several other areas, such as health behavior
change (Prochaska & Velicer, 1997), cognitive behavior therapy (Beck
& Alford, 2009; Cox, Abramson, Devine, & Hollon, 2012), and the
fundamentals of adult learning (Howell, 1982; Kaufman, 2003). We
tested this intervention in a three-month longitudinal study, comparing
a group of people who completed the intervention to a control group
who did not.
To ensure situational awareness of their bias, all participants completed a measure of implicit bias and received feedback about their
level of bias. People assigned to the intervention group were also
presented with a bias education and training program, the goals of
which were to evoke a general concern about implicit biases and train
people to eliminate such biases. The education component likened the
expression of implicit biases to a habit and provided information linking
implicit bias to discriminatory behaviors across a wide range of settings
(e.g., interpersonal, employment, health). The training component described how to apply a variety of bias reduction strategies in daily life.
Because the goal of our intervention was to engage a general
self-regulatory process, we did not present the strategies in separate
conditions to test each strategy’s relative effectiveness. Instead, the
training section presented participants with a wide array of strategies,
enabling participants to flexibly choose the strategies most applicable
to different situations in their lives. As part of the intervention, participants were prompted to report and reflect on their strategy use in the
weeks between implicit bias assessments. We predicted that only people who received the intervention would translate their situational
awareness into chronic awareness of biases in themselves and in society, thereby flipping the self-regulatory switch that motivates strategy
use and reduces implicit bias.
To evaluate the effectiveness of the intervention, we examined its
impact on an indicator of implicit bias and a variety of explicit measures longitudinally. We used the Black–White Implicit Association
Test (IAT; Greenwald, McGhee, & Schwartz, 1998) as our measure of
implicit race bias. The explicit measures included established measures of racial attitudes (Brigham, 1993), the sources of one’s motivation for responding without prejudice (Plant & Devine, 1998), and
whether one believes one’s own behavior is more biased than appropriate (Monteith & Voils, 1998). Because 90% of our sample had a
pro-White bias on the Black–White IAT, the latter served as a measure
of awareness of one’s tendency to respond with prejudice. In addition,
because the intervention included education about the adverse effects of discrimination, we developed a measure assessing concern
about discrimination in society. For both the intervention and control
groups, all measures were assessed prior to the intervention manipulation and at two time points after the manipulation. We also asked
the intervention group participants a variety of questions immediately after the education and training program about the strategies they
had learned, and, in the weeks following the administration of the intervention, we asked them some open-ended questions about their
use of the strategies.
Our design has five major strengths. First, it allows us to assess the
intervention’s effects on a rich array of variables (implicit and explicit) that are theoretically important to the reduction of race bias. Second, it enables us to examine whether the intervention’s effects on
these variables persisted or changed over time. Third, we have an opportunity to evaluate whether reported strategy use is associated
with reductions in implicit bias. Fourth, in the control group, we can
assess whether feedback about one’s level of implicit bias leads to reductions in implicit bias without a multifaceted intervention. Finally,
we can examine whether any of the explicit measurements taken at
two times, prior to and after the intervention manipulation, moderate
the effect of the intervention on implicit bias. A moderation effect
with a measure taken prior to the intervention would suggest that
the construct is related to learning processes during the intervention,
while a moderation effect with a measure taken after the intervention
would suggest that the construct is involved in the deployment of the
bias-reducing strategies. Together, these two sets of moderation analyses can yield insight into two different aspects of the bias reduction
process.
P.G. Devine et al. / Journal of Experimental Social Psychology 48 (2012) 1267–1278
Method
Participants and design
The participants were 91 non-Black introductory psychology students (67% female, 85% White), 2 who completed a 12-week longitudinal study for course credit (see Fig. 1). Attrition rates were low, never
exceeding 10% at any time point. Participants were randomly assigned
to either a control condition (n = 38) or an intervention condition
(n = 53), with more people assigned to the intervention condition to
provide greater power for analyses using the strategies measures and
because we anticipated greater attrition in the intervention condition
(but, attrition rates did not vary across condition at any time point, all
ps > .23). Throughout the study, participants completed the Black–
White IAT and several explicit measures, described below. The IAT
was administered in the lab at three time points: just prior to the intervention manipulation (baseline) and 4 and 8 weeks after the manipulation. The explicit measures were also administered at three time points:
4 weeks prior to the manipulation in a classroom setting (baseline) and
2 and 6 weeks after the manipulation via email. The intervention group
participants also completed measures of their reactions to the strategies
(e.g., perceived likelihood of use, perceived opportunity to use) immediately following the intervention. Finally, …
Purchase answer to see full
attachment
How it works
- Paste your instructions in the instructions box. You can also attach an instructions file
- Select the writer category, deadline, education level and review the instructions
- Make a payment for the order to be assignment to a writer
- Download the paper after the writer uploads it
Will the writer plagiarize my essay?
You will get a plagiarism-free paper and you can get an originality report upon request.
Is this service safe?
All the personal information is confidential and we have 100% safe payment methods. We also guarantee good grades