11
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Correction: Racial Bias in Perceptions of Others' Pain

      correction
      , ,
      PLoS ONE
      Public Library of Science

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There are errors in the Participants subsection of the Methods section of Experiment 2. The correct subsection is: We recruited 32 Black participants from the UVA Psychology pool (N = 12) and via Mechanical Turk (N = 20). UVA participants received course credit for their participation. Mechanical Turk participants received $0.50 for their participation. We excluded 5 participants from the primary analyses for not being native-English speakers and/or US-born. Including these participants in our analyses does not change the pattern of results. Our final sample of 27 varied in age (M = 31.74, SD = 14.18) and gender (70% female). There are errors in the last two sentences of the Results and Discussion section of Experiment 2. The correct sentences are: Participants’ ratings were marginally lower for a Black vs. White target and sizeable, F (1, 22) = 3.01, p = .097, η_p^2 = .12. Of note, among the full sample of 32 participants, participants’ ratings were significantly lower for a Black vs. White target and even more sizeable, F (1, 27) = 7.89, p = .009, η_p^2 = .27. There are errors in the Participants subsection of the Methods section of Experiment 3. The correct subsection is: We recruited 65 participants with the help of faculty members and administrators at a school of nursing. Participants were mailed a $10 gift certificate for their participation. We excluded 7 participants from the analyses for not being native-English speakers and/or US-born, and 14 more who identified the main hypothesis. It is worth noting that most of these participants completed the study toward the end of data collection, suggesting that they had heard about the study from someone else. Including these participants in our analyses did change the results—the pattern did not change but the difference between target race conditions was no longer statistically significant. The final sample of 43 included 29 registered nurses and 14 nursing students. The sample varied in age (M = 32.57, SD = 12.83) and ethnicity (88% White, 5% Black, and 7% other). All participants except one were women. There is an error in the first sentence of the Participants subsection of the Methods section of Experiment 5. The correct sentence is: We recruited 127 participants via Mechanical Turk (N = 57) and via the UVA Psychology Department participant pool (N = 70). There is an error in the last sentence of the Procedure subsection of the Methods section of Experiment 5. The correct sentence is: We averaged the privilege, hardship, and adversity items to form a privilege composite (=). A composite using all 4 items yields similar results, however. There are errors in the second and third sentences of the Participants subsection of the Methods section of Experiment 6. The correct sentences are: We excluded 23 participants for not being native English-speakers and/or American and 34 for failing the manipulation checks (not remembering the target’s status or race, and one participant whose pain rating was more than 4 standard deviations below the grand mean). Including these participants in our analyses changed the results below—the difference between status conditions on pain ratings became non-significant; the difference between status conditions and perceptions of status/power remained highly significant and the relationship between perceptions of status/power and pain also remained highly significant. There is an error in the fifth sentence of the Results and Discussion section of Experiment 6. The correct sentence is: Our a priori (linear) contrast comparing lower- to higher-status targets (-1 0 1) was not significant; however, a post-hoc contrast comparing the lower-status and equal-status target to the higher-status target (-1 -1 2) was significant, F (1, 230) = 5.91, p = .02. There is an error in the fourth sentence of the Secondary Analyses subsection of the Results and Discussion section of Experiment 6. The correct sentence is: And, in fact, perceptions of the target’s power over their outcomes mediates the relationship between condition and perceptions of the target’s pain; a bootstrap analysis yields a 95% confidence interval that does not include 0, (95% CI [.0077, .094], p = .031).

          Related collections

          Most cited references1

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: found
          Is Open Access

          Racial Bias in Perceptions of Others’ Pain

          The present work provides evidence that people assume a priori that Blacks feel less pain than do Whites. It also demonstrates that this bias is rooted in perceptions of status and the privilege (or hardship) status confers, not race per se. Archival data from the National Football League injury reports reveal that, relative to injured White players, injured Black players are deemed more likely to play in a subsequent game, possibly because people assume they feel less pain. Experiments 1–4 show that White and Black Americans–including registered nurses and nursing students–assume that Black people feel less pain than do White people. Finally, Experiments 5 and 6 provide evidence that this bias is rooted in perceptions of status, not race per se. Taken together, these data have important implications for understanding race-related biases and healthcare disparities.
            Bookmark

            Author and article information

            Journal
            PLoS One
            PLoS ONE
            plos
            plosone
            PLoS ONE
            Public Library of Science (San Francisco, CA USA )
            1932-6203
            24 March 2016
            2016
            : 11
            : 3
            : e0152334
            Article
            PONE-D-16-10720
            10.1371/journal.pone.0152334
            4806978
            27011308
            5d0cb736-0d75-4484-b781-b3de246a5fb1
            © 2016 Trawalter et al

            This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

            History
            Page count
            Figures: 0, Tables: 0, Pages: 2
            Categories
            Correction

            Uncategorized
            Uncategorized

            Comments

            Comment on this article