We have issued a formal correction to some errors in Lai et al. (2014). The text for the correction is attached below. Since that published correction, we have also identified some additional errors. These errors are: 1. (p. 17) In Studies 2-4, the implemention intention in the Implementation Intentions intervention was changed to "If I see a Black face, then I will respond by thinking 'good.'" 2. (p. 4) The MC-IAT follows the *D* algorithm, but not the final *D* algorithm recommended by Nosek et al. (2012). Also, we truncated response latencies under 400 ms to 400 ms instead under 200 ms to 200 ms. Correction to Lai et al. (2014) ------------------------------- In the article “Reducing Implicit Racial Preferences: I. A Comparative Investigation of 17 Interventions,” by Calvin K. Lai, Maddalena Marini, Steven A. Lehr, Carlo Cerruti, Jiyun-Elizabeth L. Shin, Jennifer A. Joy-Gaba, Arnold K. Ho, Bethany A. Teachman, Sean P. Wojcik, Spassena P. Koleva, Rebecca S. Frazier, Larisa Heiphetz, Eva E. Chen, Rhiannon N. Turner, Jonathan Haidt, Selin Kesebir, Carlee Beth Hawkins, Hillary S. Schaefer, Sandro Rubichi, Giuseppe Sartori, Christopher M. Dial, N. Sriram, Mahzarin R. Banaji, and Brian A. Nosek (Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, Advance online publication. March 24, 2014. doi: 10.1037/a0036260), the Methods section did not mention an exploratory measure that was included in Study 4 but was not analyzed. This exploratory measure was administered at the end of the study and included two items that assessed participants’ judgments about affirmative action. The two items were: “A corporate personnel officer is evaluating a Black job applicant and a White job applicant who are identically qualified except the White applicant has more prior experience in related work. Is there a reasonable justification for this personnel officer hiring the Black applicant rather than the White applicant?” and “A college admissions officer considers applications from Black applicants and White applicants with similar credentials and cannot accept all of them. Should the admissions officer more often accept Black applicants than White applicants?” The response options were “No” or “Yes.” The publication also includes discrepancies in the ranking of interventions between the first two paragraphs in General Discussion and Figure 1. Figure 1 was correct; the General Discussion was not. The first two paragraphs of the general discussion included rankings and analyses based on the first three studies, but not the fourth. In the revised text below, we have corrected the rankings and analyses to include data from Study 4. The general order of the rankings and interpretation of results remains about the same. In four studies with 17,021 total participants, we investigated the comparative effectiveness of 17 interventions to reduce implicit racial preferences. All interventions are presented in Figure 1 along with their meta-analytic confidence intervals. Eight of the seventeen interventions plus the faking condition were successful in reducing implicit preferences at least once, and all nine of these conditions had 95% confidence intervals that did not include 0 after meta-analytically aggregating across studies. The 18 experimental conditions, from most effective to least effective (by meta-analytic effect size) were: Vivid Counterstereotypic Scenario (Intervention 4), Shifting Group Boundaries through Competition (Intervention Intervention 6), Practicing an IAT with Counterstereotypical Exemplars (Intervention 5), Faking the IAT (Intervention 18), Using Implementation Intentions (Intervention 17), Evaluative Conditioning with the GNAT (Intervention 15), Priming Multiculturalism (Intervention 13), Shifting Group Affiliations Under Threat (Intervention 7), Evaluative Conditioning (Intervention 14), Inducing Moral Elevation (Intervention 16), Considering Racial Injustice (Intervention 10), Highlighting the Value of a Subgroup in Competition (Intervention 8), Priming Feelings of Non-Objectivity (Intervention 9), Imagining Interracial Contact (Intervention 3), Priming an Egalitarian Mindset (Intervention 12), Instilling a Sense of Common Humanity (Intervention 11), Training Empathic Responding (Intervention 1), and Perspective-Taking (Intervention 2).Using null-hypothesis significance testing, the first nine conditions listed above were effective at reducing implicit preferences, while the last nine were ineffective. There was considerable variability in effectiveness amongst the successful ones (ds ranging from .21 to .49, average d = .36, SD = .09), whereas ineffective interventions were fairly homogeneous (ds ranging from -.04 to .06, average d = .01, SD = .03). We organized the interventions into six descriptive categories: exposure to counterstereotypical exemplars, intentional strategies to overcome bias, evaluative conditioning, engaging with others’ perspectives, appeals to egalitarian values, and inducing emotion. Interventions from the first three categories were especially effective at reducing implicit preferences: exposure to counterstereotypical exemplars, d = .38, 95% CI [.34, .43], intentional strategies to overcome bias, d = .38, 95% CI [.33, .44], and evaluative conditioning, d = .27, 95% CI [.20, .33]. Four out of five interventions that exposed participants to counterstereotypical exemplars and all of the interventions that used intentional strategies or evaluative conditioning reduced implicit preferences at least once. Interventions from the other three categories tended to be ineffective: perspective-taking, d= -.01, 95% CI [-.09, .06], appeals to egalitarian values, d = .05, 95% CI [.01, .09], and emotion induction, d = .06, 95% CI [-.06, .19].