The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Methodology

Participants A total of 309 students (178 women and 131 men) from the University of Mississippi participated in the study [...]. Participants' age ranged from 18 to 25 with a mean of 19.06. [...]

Materials for Explicit Measurements

Modem Racism Scale (MRS). This scale contains seven items and uses a five point Likert scale ranging from -2 to + 2, with an overall score ranging from -14 to + 14. For this study the work “Black” was replaced with “minority.” Lower scores indicate prejudice or anti-minority attitudes, while higher scores indicate pro-minority attitudes. [...]

Discrimination and Diversity Scales. These scales contain eleven items measuring discrimination and four items measuring diversity. A five point Likert rating scale is used, ranging from -2 to +2, with overall scores ranging from -22 to +22 on the discrimination scale and -8 to +8 on the diversity scale. Lower scores on the discrimination scale represent more prejudice attitudes, while higher scores represent more tolerant or accepting attitudes. Lower scores on the diversity scale represent less tolerance for diversity while higher scores indicate increased tolerance for diversity. [...]

Materials for Implicit Measurements

An Implicit Association Test (IAT) was designed by the researcher to test for flash across a computer screen. The “e” key is used for selecting stereotypically Asian American names such as “Tomoko,” while the “i” key is used for selecting stereotypically European American names such as “Betty.” Participants are then asked to sort words with “positive” or “negative” connotations such as “love” with the “e” key and “hate” with the “i” key. Afterwards, both names and words are jumbled together and participants are asked to continue sorting by pressing “e” for both “Asian American” and “negative” words and “i” for both “European American” and “positive” words. In the next set of trials participants are asked to sort names only, this time using the "e" key for "European American" names and the "i" key for "Asian American" names. Finally, names and words are jumbled together again, and participants are asked to associate "European American" names and "negative" words by selecting the "e" key and "Asian American" names with "positive" words by selecting the “i” key. [...]

Experimental Variables The Asian Cultural Assimilator was used as the experimental manipulation. Participants used the interactive video format in which ten scenarios describe a social interaction between people from two cultures. [...] The scenario is followed by four alternatives and the readers are asked to choose the one that they think is reasonable from their own personal perspective. On making a selection they are directed to proceed to a page where they are provided with evaluative feedback: why the selection made is correct or incorrect. If the reader selects an incorrect response, he is directed back to the critical incident and asked to make another selection. [...]

Procedure Participants were divided into six groups, four control groups and two experimental groups. Each group consisted of approximately fifteen to twenty-five subjects. Two of the control groups watched a video and were tested afterwards, while the remaining two control groups were tested both before and after their videos. [...] The first experimental group completed the assimilator and was tested afterwards. The second experimental group completed the surveys and implicit association test two times, once as a pre-test measure and afterwards as a post-test measure. [...] Participants worked through the assimilator as a team, with the guidance of the researcher as a facilitator. Students were asked to individually select answers to the scenarios and write them down or keep them in mind. Then group decisions were made regarding which answers to choose. [...]