This is all true, but doesn't seem relevant. The study description says:
participants were simply asked to rate a particular group
That sounds like rating the group, not individuals. It sounds like being asked about the validity of the stereotype itself. And I'm pretty sure the stereotypes mentioned as examples are in fact true:
a series of stereotypical characteristics, for women were: warm, family-oriented and (less) career-focused
The only question is the magnitude of the true stereotypical difference, and whether people estimate it correctly.
I don't think it would be right even when applied to individuals. If someone tells you "X is an expert nuclear engineer" and you know that X is a woman, the prior for nuclear engineers being male no longer applies, because you can observe that X is a woman with 100% certainty. But in the resume evaluation example, what the resume evaluator wants to discover (how good a worker the applicant is) is not something that he can observe. It is true, of course, that the more detailed facts on the resume also should affect the evaluator's result, but t...
It looks like telling people "everyone is biased" might make people not want to change their behavior to overcome their biases:
The authors suggest that telling participants that everyone is biased makes being biased seem like not much of a big deal. If everyone is doing it, then it's not wrong for me to do it as well. However, it looks like the solution to the problem presented here is to give a little white lie that will prompt people to overcome their biases: