Paluck Elizabeth Levy, Green Donald P
Harvard Academy for International and Area Studies, Weatherhead Center for International Affairs, Harvard University, Cambridge, MA 02138, USA.
Annu Rev Psychol. 2009;60:339-67. doi: 10.1146/annurev.psych.60.110707.163607.
This article reviews the observational, laboratory, and field experimental literatures on interventions for reducing prejudice. Our review places special emphasis on assessing the methodological rigor of existing research, calling attention to problems of design and measurement that threaten both internal and external validity. Of the hundreds of studies we examine, a small fraction speak convincingly to the questions of whether, why, and under what conditions a given type of intervention works. We conclude that the causal effects of many widespread prejudice-reduction interventions, such as workplace diversity training and media campaigns, remain unknown. Although some intergroup contact and cooperation interventions appear promising, a much more rigorous and broad-ranging empirical assessment of prejudice-reduction strategies is needed to determine what works.
本文回顾了关于减少偏见干预措施的观察性、实验室和现场实验文献。我们的综述特别强调评估现有研究的方法严谨性,提请注意威胁内部和外部效度的设计和测量问题。在我们审查的数百项研究中,只有一小部分能令人信服地回答特定类型的干预措施是否有效、为何有效以及在何种条件下有效的问题。我们得出结论,许多广泛应用的减少偏见干预措施,如职场多元化培训和媒体宣传活动,其因果效应仍然未知。尽管一些群体间接触与合作干预措施似乎很有前景,但仍需要对减少偏见策略进行更严谨、更广泛的实证评估,以确定哪些措施有效。