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.

STUDY 1

Study 1 provides a first test of our hypothesis that listening to songs with pro‐integration lyrics reduces prejudice. After participants listened to songs with pro‐ integration lyrics or songs with neutral lyrics, prejudice was assessed by a well‐validated self‐report scale of blatant and subtle prejudice [...]

Participants and design. Participants were 96 students (66 female, 30 male) who studied at a German or an Austrian university. The pattern of findings was similar across the two universities so the data were collapsed. They were randomly assigned to one of two song lyrics conditions (pro‐integration vs. neutral). There were 54 participants (40 women, 14 men) in the pro‐ integration condition and 42 participants (26 women, 16 men) in the neutral condition. [...]

Procedure and materials. [...] Participants then listened to two songs. Participants in the pro‐ integration condition listened to [Audio Stimulus 1...]. Participants in the neutral condition listened to [Audio Stimulus 2...]. [...] Prejudice was assessed by asking participants to respond to a measure of blatant and subtle prejudice against Turkish immigrants. For each subscale, there are 10 items. [...] All items were assessed on a scale from 1 to 6 and combined, using the mean. Higher scores reflect more prejudice. [...] Finally, participants indicated their liking of the two songs, using two items. [...] They also responded to a manipulation check assessing the extent to which the content of the two songs was about integration. These items were assessed on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 10 (very much). [...]

STUDY 2

Study 2 examines whether listening to songs with pro‐ integration lyrics reduces discrimination. To assess discrimination, after participants listened to songs with pro‐integration lyrics or songs with neutral lyrics, aggressive behavior against an ingroup member or an outgroup member was assessed. [...] Participants were told that they would compete against another participant over several trials. The loser of each trial would receive some form of punishment and the punishment levels would be set by the winner prior to the trial. [...]

Participants and design. Participants were 100 students at an Austrian university, who received course credit for participation. They were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. [...] Thus, the final sample consisted of 95 participants. There were 24 participants (15 women, 9 men) who listened to songs with pro‐integration lyrics and the target was an ingroup member; there were 21 participants (13 women, 8 men) who listened to songs with pro‐integration lyrics and the target was an outgroup member; there were 21 participants (14 women, 7 men) who listened to songs with neutral lyrics and the target was an ingroup member; there were 29 participants (16 women, 13 men) who listened to songs with neutral lyrics and the target was an outgroup member. That is, a 2 (song lyrics condition: pro‐ integration vs. neutral) 2 (target: ingroup vs. outgroup) experimental design was employed.

Procedure and materials. [...] They first reported their preferences in music genres, which did not qualify the effects of song lyrics condition on the main dependent measure. The same applies to Study 3. Afterwards, they listened to two songs. Participants in the pro‐integration condition listened to [Audio Stimulus 3...]. Participants in the neutral condition listened to [Audio Stimulus 4...]. All participants read the song lyrics that were printed out while listening to the songs. Then, song liking, arousal, and mood were assessed. [...] Participants indicated their liking of each song separately, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Arousal was assessed by asking participants to what extent they felt aroused, on a scale from 1 (not at all) to 5 (very much). Mood was assessed by asking participants how they felt at the moment, on a scale from 1 (bad) to 5 (very good). [...] Participants were also asked to write down all ideas that they were thinking about while listening to the songs. Two raters who were blind to experimental conditions coded whether there was at least one thought about integration, listed by the participants. [...] Afterwards, participants learned that they would complete a competitive reaction time task. On each of 25 trials, they would compete with an opponent of the same sex to see who can press a mouse button faster after hearing an auditory cue. Participants further learned some information about the ostensible opponent. It was varied whether the opponent was allegedly an ingroup or an outgroup member. [...] Participants were told that they could punish the opponent with bursts of white noise. [...] After each trial, participants learned about the punishment levels set by the opponent. [...]

STUDY 3

[...] To assess prejudice, the same scale was employed as in Study 1. To assess discrimination, we measured participant’s helping behavior toward an ingroup member or an outgroup member, which can be considered an unobtrusive form of discrimination.

Participants and design. Participants were 100 students at an Austrian university. They were randomly assigned to one of four experimental conditions. [...] As in Study 2, a 2 (song lyrics condition: pro‐integration vs. neutral) 2 (target: ingroup vs. outgroup) experimental design was employed. There were 24 participants (13 women, 11 men) who listened to songs with pro‐integration lyrics and the target was an ingroup member; there were 21 participants (8 women, 13 men) who listened to songs with pro‐ integration lyrics and the target was an outgroup member; there were 25 participants (10 women, 14 men) who listened to songs with neutral lyrics and the target was an ingroup member; there were 25 participants (13 women, 12 men) who listened to songs with neutral lyrics and the target was an outgroup member. [...]

Procedure and materials. [...] First, participants in the pro‐integration condition listened to [Audio Stimulus 5...], whereas participants in the neutral condition listened to [Audio Stimulus 6....] In a pilot test (N = 5), participants were exposed to the lyrics of the pro‐integration songs and the lyrics of the neutral songs and indicated to what extent the songs advocate integration of outgroup members [...]. After participants had listened to the two songs, they indicated their liking of each song [...] Arousal was assessed by asking participants to what extent they felt each song to be arousing [...] Mood was assessed by asking participants how they felt at the moment [...] In an ostensible second study, they responded to the same measure of blatant and subtle forms of prejudice against Turkish immigrants as in Study 1. [...] Afterwards, the experimenter told the participants that another student would need participants for her bachelor’s study. Participants learned the name and saw a picture of a student. The ingroup member had a typical Austrian/ German name [...] and appearance, whereas the outgroup member had a typical Turkish name [...] and appearance. Participants were asked whether they would be willing to distribute leaflets [...] After the participant left the lab, the experimenter counted the number of leaflets taken for the ingroup member and outgroup member, respectively.