Evidence map›Paper›PMID 39804916›Full record

ArticlePloS one2025

Overcoming the threat of anti-bias interventions: Combining self-report and psychophysiological measures to capture the process of change.

Félice van Nunspeet, Esmee M Veenstra, Beatriz Monteiro Graça Casquinho, Naomi Ellemers, Daan Scheepers, Miriam I Wickham, Elena A M Bacchini, Jojanneke van der Toorn, Organizational Behaviour Group

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in PloS one, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
1citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

1 citing paper in PubMed.

  1. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

9 authors.

Félice van NunspeetFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0002-6190-9109
Esmee M VeenstraFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.ORCID https://orcid.org/0000-0003-3871-8213
Beatriz Monteiro Graça CasquinhoFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Naomi EllemersFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Daan ScheepersFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Miriam I WickhamFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Elena A M BacchiniFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Jojanneke van der ToornFaculty of Social and Behavioural Sciences, Utrecht University, Utrecht, The Netherlands.
Organizational Behaviour Group

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

Anti-bias interventions do not always have the intended results and can even backfire. In light of research on the psychology of morality, we examined whether confronting people with evidence of their own (group's) bias causes a (psychophysiological) threat response, and how to overcome this. We focused on an intervention addressing gender bias in teacher evaluations. After assessing their own teaching evaluations, we presented student research participants (N = 101; 71.3% female), in Part 1 of the intervention, with evidence of bias displayed in such teaching evaluations. This evidence either did (self-implied condition) or did not (self not-implied condition) include participants' own ostensibly biased evaluations. In Part 2 of the intervention, we asked participants to reflect on the issue of gender bias, and compared the impact of two experimental instructions. In the promotion condition, instructions referred to emphasizing how the university could try to achieve the ideal of promoting fair and just evaluations of teachers. In the prevention condition, instructions referred to highlighting the university's obligation to prevent unfair and unjust teacher evaluations. While participants verbally reflected on the intervention, during both phases (in Part 1 and Part 2) we measured their psychophysiological responses using indices of cardiovascular 'threat vs. challenge'. Then, we used self-report measures to examine participants' explicit responses to the different parts of the intervention. Results revealed that implicating the self in the occurrence of bias (Part 1) raises a psychophysiological threat response. However, emphasizing the future ideal of promoting fair evaluations of teachers (rather than the obligation of preventing biased evaluations; Part 2) resulted in a psychophysiological challenge response and increased perceived coping abilities to combat such bias. The implications of these findings are discussed.

Indexed as

Self ReportSexismAdultFemaleHumansMaleStudentsYoung Adult

Identifiers

PMID39804916
PMCPMC11730427

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.