Prejudice reduction: what works? A review and assessment of research and practice.

By E. Paluck, Donald P. Green. Annual Review of Psychology, 2009

1,159 citations recorded by the source corpus.

Subfields: Gender Studies, Social Psychology, Sociology and Political Science

View Paper: https://www.semanticscholar.org/paper/6b6e3fd463ab3ddf09afe103a45ea37e20697f10

How researchers see this paper

The researchers whose trusted networks rank it highest, strongest advocate first. Every researcher gets a different order.

In Gender Studies

In Social Psychology

In Sociology and Political Science

Citations in the corpus

The greatest magic of Harry Potter: Reducing prejudice (2015, neutral): “However, strategies based on direct intergroup contact have some important limitations: They cannot be applied when there is no opportunity for contact and are often difﬁcult and costly to put into practice (Paluck & Green, 2009).”
Changing attitudes to inclusion in preservice teacher education: a systematic review (2019, methodology): “These and other models (see e.g. Paluck and Green 2009) might provide valuable insights into how to design an intervention, in order to change preservice teachers’ attitudes effectively.”
The Contact Space: A Novel Framework for Intergroup Contact Research (2010, background): “…the discussion of communication about contact suggests ways in which work on intergroup contact may merge into other prejudice reduction strategies such as intercultural training (Cargile & Giles, 1996) and explicitly persuasive messages about stereotyping and tolerance (see Paluck & Green, 2009).”
Improving implicit and explicit intergroup attitudes using imagined contact: An experimental intervention with elementary school children (2012, background): “…in the experimental condition engaged in a brief discussion with the experimenter goes in the direction to adjust the imagined contact procedure to real world interventions and is consistent with many experimental prejudice-reduction studies conducted in the field (see Paluck & Green, 2009).”
Reducing Exclusionary Attitudes through Interpersonal Conversation: Evidence from Three Field Experiments (2020, background): “The few such strategies that have been identified typically decay within days (Lai et al. 2016) or require intense intervention over months or years (e.g., Paluck and Green 2009b; but see Broockman and Kalla 2016; Simonovits, Kezdi, and Kardos 2018).”
When and why does extended contact work? (2011, positive): “In line with Paluck and Green’s (2009) recommendation, the present research evaluated an extended contact intervention in the field amongst children in a school setting.”
Pointless Diversity Training: Unconscious Bias, New Racism and Agency (2018, background): “From an extensive review of 985 published studies of prejudice reduction, Paluck and Green (2009) conclude that there are plenty of ideas and theories, but no evidence conclusive enough to develop confident policy making.”
Stories and the Promotion of Social Cognition (2018, background): “If stories promote social cognition, then story-based interventions might promote perspective taking between different groups (Paluck & Green, 2009) or in special populations who struggle with social cognition (e.g., autism; Tsunemi et al., 2014).”
Stigma: Advances in Theory and Research (2013, background): “Although social psychological research on stigma reduction is growing (Bos, Schaalma, & Pryor, 2008; Paluck & Greene, 2009; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006), many stigma interventions lack sound theory and methodology.”
Preventing prejudice and improving intergroup attitudes: A meta-analysis of child and adolescent training programs (2014, background): “…interventions, the outcomes of systematic evaluations in this field have revealed no clear empirical consensus on what should be viewed as the best way to prevent prejudice and promote positive intergroup attitudes among children and adolescents (Aboud & Levy, 2000; Paluck & Green, 2009).”
Field Experiments on Discrimination (2016, methodology): “Paluck and Green (2009) perform a thorough literature search of the randomized field evidence on the de-biasing techniques listed above.”