ReviewPerspectives on behavior science2026
A Systematic Review of Empirical Data from Behavior Analysis on Anti-Black Bias.
Review in Perspectives on behavior science, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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.
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.
Who cites it
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Despite growing attention to diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI), empirical research on anti-Black bias within behavior analysis remains scarce. This systematic review followed PRISMA guidelines and adopted a methodological and conceptual framework grounded in behavior analysis to identify and examine 23 empirical studies published in 27 behavior-analytic journals between 1964 and 2026. The selected studies were categorized into three methodological domains: (1) cross-sectional and correlational surveys; (2) validity of implicit and explicit measures for detecting anti-Black bias; and (3) experimental interventions on anti-Black bias. Cross-sectional and correlational studies examined associations between values, psychological flexibility, mental health, and racial attitudes, highlighting contextual influences on bias. Measurement studies primarily used relational frame theory-based tools, including the implicit relational assessment procedure (IRAP) and the Function Acquisition Speed Test (FAST), demonstrating sensitivity to implicit anti-Black biases not captured by self-report measures. Intervention studies included equivalence-based training, particularly with children, showing promising but preliminary effects in modifying biased relational networks. Interventions with adults also yielded favorable outcomes, especially those involving values clarification and exposure to relationally inconsistent stimuli. Across cross-sectional studies, common limitations included reliance on convenience samples, incomplete reporting of sampling procedures, and inadequate control of confounding variables. Experimental studies frequently lacked control groups or baseline comparability included limited follow-up assessments, and relied on self-report or emerging measures with limited validation. Overall, findings highlight the need for a more cumulative, conceptually precise, and functionally grounded research agenda to advance antiracist efforts within behavior analysis. Supplementary Information: The online version contains supplementary material available at https://doi.org/10.1007/s40614-026-00506-3.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
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.