Effects of Perspective Taking and Values Consistency in Reducing Implicit Racial Bias
Bibliographic record
Abstract
The current study explored the effect of perspective taking and values consistency tasks on reducing implicit racial bias. Using a repeated measures design with a control group, 39 participants, 20 female and 19 males aged from 18-54 years, who identified as White were administered the Implicit Relational Assessment Procedure. All participants in the experimental group (n = 19) and control group (n = 20) completed the Toronto Empathy Questionnaire, Modified Modern Racism Scale, Valuing Questionnaire, and a Likert scale. Experimental group participants completed brief values consistency and perspective taking tasks, whereas the control group completed a guided task. A 2 x 4 mixed repeated-measures analysis of variance was conducted to determine if there was interaction effect between group and trial types and a MANOVA to identify differences in the explicit measures between both groups. Results showed that after the values work and perspective taking exercises, participants in the experimental group recorded shorter mean responses for Inconsistent-Black trial blocks versus Consistent-Black trial blocks compared to the control group. Additionally, a statistically significant impact for interaction between condition and trial type was found for the Consistent-White trial type in the experimental group. Recommendations for future research are presented.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame distilled prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. Learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and 10,348 direct Gemma labels. Candidate is the union of thresholded teacher heads; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels or direct frontier model labels.
Codex and Gemma teacher scores by category
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Open science | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Research integrity | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one teacher head, not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".