Author
Maddalena Marini
Other affiliations: Harvard University, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia, University of Virginia
Bio: Maddalena Marini is an academic researcher from Istituto Italiano di Tecnologia. The author has contributed to research in topics: Implicit-association test & Implicit attitude. The author has an hindex of 10, co-authored 19 publications receiving 1414 citations. Previous affiliations of Maddalena Marini include Harvard University & University of Modena and Reggio Emilia.
Papers
More filters
••
Washington University in St. Louis1, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia2, Harvard University3, State University of New York System4, Virginia Commonwealth University5, Colgate University6, University of Michigan7, University of Virginia8, University of California, Irvine9, California State University, Los Angeles10, New York University11, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology12, Queen's University Belfast13, London Business School14, University of Padua15
TL;DR: Eight of 17 interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared with Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases.
Abstract: Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted seventeen interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in four studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of seventeen interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared to Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other nine interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others’ perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics.
375 citations
••
University of Modena and Reggio Emilia1, Harvard University2, Stony Brook University3, Virginia Commonwealth University4, Colgate University5, University of Virginia6, University of California, Berkeley7, University of Southern California8, Boston College9, Hong Kong University of Science and Technology10, Queen's University Belfast11, New York University12, London Business School13, University of Padua14
TL;DR: This paper conducted a research contest to compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice and found that the most potent interventions were those that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity.
Abstract: Many methods for reducing implicit prejudice have been identified, but little is known about their relative effectiveness. We held a research contest to experimentally compare interventions for reducing the expression of implicit racial prejudice. Teams submitted 17 interventions that were tested an average of 3.70 times each in 4 studies (total N = 17,021), with rules for revising interventions between studies. Eight of 17 interventions were effective at reducing implicit preferences for Whites compared with Blacks, particularly ones that provided experience with counterstereotypical exemplars, used evaluative conditioning methods, and provided strategies to override biases. The other 9 interventions were ineffective, particularly ones that engaged participants with others' perspectives, asked participants to consider egalitarian values, or induced a positive emotion. The most potent interventions were ones that invoked high self-involvement or linked Black people with positivity and White people with negativity. No intervention consistently reduced explicit racial preferences. Furthermore, intervention effectiveness only weakly extended to implicit preferences for Asians and Hispanics.
370 citations
••
Harvard University1, University of Washington2, Colgate University3, University of Wisconsin-Madison4, San Diego State University5, University of California, Davis6, New York University7, University of California, Irvine8, Carleton College9, University of Arkansas10, Virginia Commonwealth University11, University of Florida12, Yale University13, Purdue University14, University of Texas at Austin15, Rutgers University16, University of Virginia17, Durham University18, Wesleyan University19, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia20, Stony Brook University21
TL;DR: The authors tested 9 interventions (8 real and 1 sham) to reduce implicit racial preferences over time and found that none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days, and also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial preferences and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice.
Abstract: Implicit preferences are malleable, but does that change last? We tested 9 interventions (8 real and 1 sham) to reduce implicit racial preferences over time. In 2 studies with a total of 6,321 participants, all 9 interventions immediately reduced implicit preferences. However, none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days. We also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial preferences and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice. Short-term malleability in implicit preferences does not necessarily lead to long-term change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit preferences. (PsycINFO Database Record
298 citations
••
TL;DR: It is concluded that strong implicit and explicit anti-fat bias is as pervasive among MDs as it is among the general public.
Abstract: Overweight patients report weight discrimination in health care settings and subsequent avoidance of routine preventive health care. The purpose of this study was to examine implicit and explicit attitudes about weight among a large group of medical doctors (MDs) to determine the pervasiveness of negative attitudes about weight among MDs. Test-takers voluntarily accessed a public Web site, known as Project Implicit®, and opted to complete the Weight Implicit Association Test (IAT) (N = 359,261). A sub-sample identified their highest level of education as MD (N = 2,284). Among the MDs, 55% were female, 78% reported their race as white, and 62% had a normal range BMI. This large sample of test-takers showed strong implicit anti-fat bias (Cohen's d = 1.0). MDs, on average, also showed strong implicit anti-fat bias (Cohen's d = 0.93). All test-takers and the MD sub-sample reported a strong preference for thin people rather than fat people or a strong explicit anti-fat bias. We conclude that strong implicit and explicit anti-fat bias is as pervasive among MDs as it is among the general public. An important area for future research is to investigate the association between providers' implicit and explicit attitudes about weight, patient reports of weight discrimination in health care, and quality of care delivered to overweight patients.
293 citations
••
Harvard University1, University of Washington2, Colgate University3, University of Wisconsin-Madison4, San Diego State University5, University of California, Davis6, New York University7, University of California, Irvine8, Carleton College9, University of Arkansas10, Virginia Commonwealth University11, University of Florida12, Yale University13, Purdue University14, University of Texas at Austin15, Rutgers University16, University of Virginia17, University of Modena and Reggio Emilia18, State University of New York System19
TL;DR: It is found that short-term malleability in implicit preferences does not necessarily lead to long-term change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit preferences.
Abstract: Implicit prejudice is malleable, but does that change last? We tested nine interventions (eight real and one sham) that have been demonstrated to reduce implicit racial prejudice temporarily to determine whether their effects also persisted over time. In two studies with a total of 6,321 participants, all nine interventions immediately reduced implicit prejudice, but none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days. We also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial prejudice and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice. Short-term malleability in implicit prejudice does not necessarily lead to longterm change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit attitudes.
278 citations
Cited by
More filters
••
University of Auckland1, Deakin University2, Virginia Tech3, Commonwealth Scientific and Industrial Research Organisation4, Catholic University of Leuven5, Public Health Foundation of India6, Imperial College London7, Australian National University8, Brookings Institution9, Washington University in St. Louis10, University of Stirling11, University of London12, Harvard University13, University of Hertfordshire14, McGill University15, Drexel University16, Tehran University of Medical Sciences17, George Washington University18, Newcastle University19, Wellington Management Company20, Huazhong University of Science and Technology21, World Bank22, University of Cape Town23, University of Amsterdam24, University of Newcastle25
TL;DR: This work aims to demonstrate the efforts towards in-situ applicability of EMMARM, which aims to provide real-time information about concrete mechanical properties such as E-modulus and compressive strength.
1,480 citations
••
TL;DR: The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population, and the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare is highlighted.
Abstract: Implicit biases involve associations outside conscious awareness that lead to a negative evaluation of a person on the basis of irrelevant characteristics such as race or gender. This review examines the evidence that healthcare professionals display implicit biases towards patients. PubMed, PsychINFO, PsychARTICLE and CINAHL were searched for peer-reviewed articles published between 1st March 2003 and 31st March 2013. Two reviewers assessed the eligibility of the identified papers based on precise content and quality criteria. The references of eligible papers were examined to identify further eligible studies. Forty two articles were identified as eligible. Seventeen used an implicit measure (Implicit Association Test in fifteen and subliminal priming in two), to test the biases of healthcare professionals. Twenty five articles employed a between-subjects design, using vignettes to examine the influence of patient characteristics on healthcare professionals’ attitudes, diagnoses, and treatment decisions. The second method was included although it does not isolate implicit attitudes because it is recognised by psychologists who specialise in implicit cognition as a way of detecting the possible presence of implicit bias. Twenty seven studies examined racial/ethnic biases; ten other biases were investigated, including gender, age and weight. Thirty five articles found evidence of implicit bias in healthcare professionals; all the studies that investigated correlations found a significant positive relationship between level of implicit bias and lower quality of care. The evidence indicates that healthcare professionals exhibit the same levels of implicit bias as the wider population. The interactions between multiple patient characteristics and between healthcare professional and patient characteristics reveal the complexity of the phenomenon of implicit bias and its influence on clinician-patient interaction. The most convincing studies from our review are those that combine the IAT and a method measuring the quality of treatment in the actual world. Correlational evidence indicates that biases are likely to influence diagnosis and treatment decisions and levels of care in some circumstances and need to be further investigated. Our review also indicates that there may sometimes be a gap between the norm of impartiality and the extent to which it is embraced by healthcare professionals for some of the tested characteristics. Our findings highlight the need for the healthcare profession to address the role of implicit biases in disparities in healthcare. More research in actual care settings and a greater homogeneity in methods employed to test implicit biases in healthcare is needed.
1,237 citations
••
TL;DR: In this article, the authors outline the need to conduct a meta-analysis on one's own studies within a manuscript and provide a user-friendly guide on calculating some metaanalytic procedures that are appropriate when there are only a few studies.
Abstract: We outline the need to, and provide a guide on how to, conduct a meta-analysis on one's own studies within a manuscript. Although conducting a “mini meta” within one's manuscript has been argued for in the past, this practice is still relatively rare and adoption is slow. We believe two deterrents are responsible. First, researchers may not think that it is legitimate to do a meta-analysis on a small number of studies. Second, researchers may think a meta-analysis is too complicated to do without expert knowledge or guidance. We dispel these two misconceptions by (1) offering arguments on why researchers should be encouraged to do mini metas, (2) citing previous articles that have conducted such analyses to good effect, and (3) providing a user-friendly guide on calculating some meta-analytic procedures that are appropriate when there are only a few studies. We provide formulas for calculating effect sizes and converting effect sizes from one metric to another (e.g., from Cohen's d to r), as well as annotated Excel spreadsheets and a step-by-step guide on how to conduct a simple meta-analysis. A series of related studies can be strengthened and better understood if accompanied by a mini meta-analysis.
608 citations
••
TL;DR: There is a need for more research exploring implicit bias in real-world patient care, potential modifiers and confounders of the effect of implicit bias on care, and strategies aimed at reducing implicit bias and improving patient-provider communication.
442 citations
••
King's College London1, University of Cambridge2, University of Connecticut3, University of Washington4, Anschutz Medical Campus5, Louisiana State University6, Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai7, Mount Sinai Hospital8, Diabetes UK9, Boston Medical Center10, Boston University11, Cornell University12, University College Hospital13, University College London14, Louisiana State University System15, Adolfo Ibáñez University16, University of Padua17, Rabin Medical Center18, Indiana University19, Stanford University20, University of Leeds21, City University of New York22, Harvard University23, Pennington Biomedical Research Center24, Columbia University25, University College Dublin26, American Diabetes Association27, The Catholic University of America28, Penn State Milton S. Hershey Medical Center29, University of Michigan30, Complutense University of Madrid31, Baker IDI Heart and Diabetes Institute32
TL;DR: In this paper, a multidisciplinary group of international experts, including representatives of scientific organizations, reviewed available evidence on the causes and harms of weight stigma and, using a modified Delphi process, developed a joint consensus statement with recommendations to eliminate weight bias.
Abstract: People with obesity commonly face a pervasive, resilient form of social stigma. They are often subject to discrimination in the workplace as well as in educational and healthcare settings. Research indicates that weight stigma can cause physical and psychological harm, and that affected individuals are less likely to receive adequate care. For these reasons, weight stigma damages health, undermines human and social rights, and is unacceptable in modern societies. To inform healthcare professionals, policymakers, and the public about this issue, a multidisciplinary group of international experts, including representatives of scientific organizations, reviewed available evidence on the causes and harms of weight stigma and, using a modified Delphi process, developed a joint consensus statement with recommendations to eliminate weight bias. Academic institutions, professional organizations, media, public-health authorities, and governments should encourage education about weight stigma to facilitate a new public narrative about obesity, coherent with modern scientific knowledge.
404 citations