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.

Experiments 1 and 2

Method

Participants Forty (16 male, 24 female) White participants were recruited from a larger pool of possible participants for Experiment 1. Eligible participants were identified on the basis of the racial attitudes they reported during a mass testing session at the beginning of the semester. [...] In Experiment 2, 38 (10 male, 28 female) White participants were again recruited from a larger pool of possible participants. [...]

Design Participants viewed two types of pictures along with filler pictures. The racial pictures included Blacks, and the nonracial pictures did not. Depending on the condition to which participants were randomly assigned, they received either high or low negative arousal feedback in connection with these two types of pictures. Participants in the racial feedback condition received feedback suggesting they were having high negative arousal in relation to the racial pictures but low arousal in relation to the nonracial pictures. Participants in the nonracial feedback condition received feedback suggesting they were having high negative arousal in relation to the nonracial pictures but low arousal in relation to the racial pictures. [...] Following practice trials, participants viewed several rounds of pictures, and they attempted to decrease any negative arousal they had across the rounds. There were three rounds in Experiment 1. Thus, Experiment 1’s design was a 2 (gender) X 2 (picture type: racial vs. nonracial) X 2 (feedback condition: racial feedback vs. nonracial feedback) X 3 (round: first, second, and third) mixed model, with feedback condition and gender treated as between-subjects factors and the other factors treated as repeated measures. The same design was used in Experiment 2, except that there were too few men to consider gender as a factor, and five rounds of viewing the pictures were used rather than three.

Materials and Procedure

Participants completed the experiment individually.

Initial activities. The experimenter explained the need to collect some baseline physiological arousal data, and she applied some electrode paste to the second phalanges of the first and third fingers of the participant’s nondominant hand and attached electrodes to those fingers. [...] The experimenter started a computer program that ostensibly collected the physiological data, and participants were able to view their (bogus) physiological activity on the computer monitor for a moment. [...] The experimenter left the room and returned after 3 min to close the supposed program for collecting the baseline physiological data. [...] The experimenter went on to explain that, because the experiment was part of a nationwide project, a standardized, tape-recorded set of instructions was being used. She started the tape. [...]

Pictures. The pictures were obtained from secondary resources. [...] The first round of viewing, which followed the practice trials, included four types of pictures (all different from those used during practice trials): six neutral, five arousing, three nonracial, and three racial. [...]

Picture viewings and assessment of behavioral inhibition. The picture-viewing portion of the experiment included practice and experimental trials. [...] The pictures were digitized and presented as full-screen images on the computer monitor. Each picture was presented for 3s, followed by a bar graph showing participants’ supposed level of arousal in relation to the picture. Participants were instructed to press the space bar after seeing their feedback so that the next picture would be presented. The time between the presentation of the feedback graph and participants’ pressing the space bar was recorded by the computer in milliseconds as the measure of behavioral inhibition. [...] Participants completed 10 practice trials. The pictures were presented in a fixed, random order. Participants received very low arousal feedback for the five neutral pictures included in the practice and varying levels of high arousal feedback for the five arousing pictures. The experimenter then reentered the room and started the tape recorder again. This portion of the tape reiterated essential features of the experiment and indicated that participants would now view 17 pictures. The tape emphasized the variety of scenes included in the pictures and the fact that the scenes may or may not cause negative physiological reactions among participants. [...] Seventeen pictures were presented in a fixed, random order. Six pictures were neutral in content, and all participants received low arousal feedback in connection with them. Five pictures were arousing, and participants received varying levels of high arousal feedback in relation to them. Three racial and three nonracial pictures were also presented. Participants in the racial feedback condition received varying levels of high arousal feedback in relation to the racial pictures and low arousal feedback in relation to the nonracial pictures. The feedback was reversed for participants in the nonracial feedback condition [...]. The recording indicated that participants now would see again 11 of the pictures that “theoretically might produce the most negative arousal in individuals.” Participants were instructed to try to control their level of negative arousal in relation to each picture, perhaps using the techniques that had been suggested in the article. They were also told that, to help them gauge the extent of their success in controlling their arousal, they would see two bar graphs—one labeled LAST TIME (indicating how much arousal was experienced on the previous viewing), and one labeled THIS TIME (reflecting the current level of arousal). Participants then began the second round of viewing, which included the arousing filler pictures and the racial and nonracial pictures. The third round of viewing was completed after participants were once again encouraged to try to control any negative arousal they might have. [...] Five rounds of viewing were included in Experiment 2 to determine whether behavioral inhibition would continue to occur across the additional rounds. [...] The feedback schedule for these various rounds is summarized in Table 1. Participants in both feedback conditions supposedly were able to lower their negative arousal in connection with the arousing filler pictures across the rounds. Participants in the racial feedback condition never were able to lower their arousal in connection with the racial pictures and never experienced high arousal in relation to the nonracial pictures. Participants in the nonracial feedback condition received a reverse pattern of feedback for the racial and nonracial pictures across all rounds.

Postviewing measures. Participants indicated the extent to which they were experiencing 29 different emotions, making each rating by typing a number between 1 (does not apply at all) and 7 (applies very much). [...] Next, participants in Experiment 1 completed manipulation check items, which assessed participants’ own perceptions of their level of physiological arousal in relation to the pictures. [...] The two ratings of greatest interest were for “scenes involving Blacks (e.g., interracial scenes)” and “disturbing scenes (strange scenes, though not violent).” Ratings were made on scales ranging from 1 (not at all arousing) to 7 (very arousing). Participants then made ratings to indicate their own perceptions of how successful they were at controlling their arousal in relation to the different types of pictures on scales ranging from 1 (not at all successful) to 7 (very successful). A final item was included to determine whether participants in the two feedback conditions perceived equal levels of success (or failure) throughout the slide-viewing procedure. This item asked participants to rate “how successful you think you were at controlling your physiological arousal in general” on a scale from 1 (not at all successful) to 7 (very successful). Rather than completing manipulation checks, participants in Experiment 2 were asked to complete a thought-listing task about their reactions to the experiment. Participants were asked to record all thoughts they had concerning the experiment, writing one thought per box on a form. [...]

Experiment 3

Method

Participants Seventy-two White participants (34 male and 38 female) from the introductory psychology participant pool were preselected for participation. The 16-item Should scale from [...] Should– Would Discrepancy Questionnaire had been included in the semester’s mass testing and was used to assess the extent to which participants’ personal standards for responding to Blacks were prejudiced. [...] Participants were preselected to obtain as reasonable a representation across this range as possible (obtained range = 16–74; M = 30.10, SD = 12.37) while not confounding gender with the extent to which their personal standards were prejudiced [...]. [...]

Design The design was a 2 (personal standards: low prejudice vs. high prejudice) X 2 (critical item set: 1 vs. 2) X 2 (pairing scheme: White photographs paired with Item Set 1 and Black photographs with Item Set 2 vs. Black photos paired with Item Set 1 and White photos paired with Item Set 2) mixed model. [...] Approximately an equal number of participants were randomly assigned to the pairing scheme conditions. [...]

Procedure Participants completed the experiment individually. [...] In actuality, the first three tasks were fillers, included to reduce suspicion about the final task. These filler tasks included a computerized name categorization task, an anagram task, and a reading comprehension task. [...] The main experimental task was described as a dual-processing task. [...] The experimenter then started one of the two computer programs. Each program first displayed a series of four photographs individually. Participants were given an opportunity to study each photograph until they felt confident that they could later recognize it. The program then presented an example of the inference task. Participants read a sentence [...] and were asked to state aloud the first response that came to mind [...]. [...] The experimenter then emphasized that participants were to press the space bar immediately after providing their response. [...] For the visual memory portion of task, participants would first see a photograph that would be either one of the original four photographs shown earlier or its mirror image. They were to indicate as quickly as possible whether the photograph was the same as or different from the photographs they saw at the beginning of the program by pressing the Z key (labeled S for same) or the M key (labeled D for different). When participants made their response, a sentence that described a person then appeared on the screen. Participants were instructed to say aloud the first response that came to mind for the person description as quickly as possible. [...] The experimenter emphasized that participants should press the space bar at the same time as they provided each verbal response. Unbeknownst to participants, the computer recorded the amount of time that expired between the presentation of each person description sentence and when participants pressed the space bar. This time to generate a response (i.e., indication of pausing) served as the measure of behavioral inhibition. [...]

Experiment 4

Method

Participants Forty-eight White (23 male, 25 female) introductory psychology students were preselected on the basis of their responses to the Should portion of the [...] Should–Would Discrepancy Questionnaire, which had been included in a mass testing session at the beginning of the semester. We allowed Should scores to vary (M = 29.13, SD = 13.54), although the distribution was positively skewed such that most participants held relatively low-prejudice standards. Also, participants had scores of at least 4 on the [...] Discrepancy Questionnaire. [...]

Procedure Participants completed the experiment individually. The experimenter informed them that the study concerned categorization and that they would complete several tasks related to how well people can categorize items. [...] Participants first completed a filler task that required them to identify 80 names as either male or female. Participants then completed a racial IAT [...] that required them to categorize items as either Black or White names or pleasant or unpleasant words. [...] The IAT consisted of seven blocks of trials presented in a fixed order across participants: 1. Categorize White names on left, Black names on right. 2. Categorize pleasant words on left, unpleasant words on right. 3. Categorize White names or pleasant words on left, Black names or unpleasant words on right (practice). 4. Repetition of Block 3 (test). 5. Categorize Black names on left, White names on right. 6. Categorize Black names or pleasant words on left, White names or unpleasant words on right (practice). 7. Repetition of Block 6 (test). Reaction times were recorded on the test blocks, allowing a comparison of performance on congruent trials (i.e., Block 4) with performance on incongruent trials (i.e., Block 7). [...] A red X appeared in the middle of the screen when an incorrect response was made [...] and remained there until a correct response was made. A green O appeared for correct responses. [...] The experimenter then pointed out the discrepancy between performance on congruent and incongruent trials. [...] The next screen noted that researchers are often interested in how people feel after certain procedures and asked participants to record their affect using a 32-item affect scale similar to the scales used in Experiments 1 and 2. Each affect item was rated using a scale ranging from 1 (does not apply at all) to 7 (applies very much). Participants then completed a filler task that required them to read a list of 125 words and place each into one of seven categories [...]. Participants then completed two final tasks. The experimenter informed participants that they would see a list of words presented individually and would have to categorize the words as quickly as possible by pressing one of two keys. First, they categorized items as either living or nonliving [...] There were two blocks including 30 trials each, yielding a total of 60 trials. The items presented contained words from the previous filler task, new filler words, and names from the IAT. Specifically, each block included 5 Black names and 5 White names, plus 20 filler words presented in a random order that was fixed across participants. [...] However, the next task was expected to reveal the operation of cues for control. For this task, participants categorized the same words (presented in reverse order) in terms of whether they liked or disliked each item. Participants were instructed to perform the task as quickly as possible, using the z key for like and the 2 key for dislike. The presentation of Black names in the context of indicating one’s likes and dislikes should constitute the presentation of cues for control among participants who felt guilty in relation to their IAT performance. [...]