Sage Journals: Discover world-class research

Abstract

It has become common practice to conceptualize bias as an automatic response, cultivated through exposure to bias in society. From this perspective, combating bias requires reducing a proclivity for bias within individuals, as in many implicit-bias training efforts common in schools and corporations. We introduce an alternative approach that begins with the presumption that people are inherently complex, with multiple, often contradictory, selves and goals. When the person is conceptualized this way, it is possible to ask when biased selves are likely to emerge and whether this bias can be sidelined—that is, whether situations can be altered in potent ways that elevate alternative selves and goals that people will endorse and for which bias would be nonfunctional. Using both classic and contemporary examples, we show how sidelining bias has led to meaningful improvements in real-world outcomes, including higher academic achievement and reduced school suspensions, less recidivism to jail, and less stereotyping in mass advertisements.

Keywords

bias discipline recidivism incarceration advertisement

Do I contradict myself?

Very well then I contradict myself,

(I am large, I contain multitudes.)

—Walt Whitman, “Song of Myself” (from Leaves of Grass, 1891–1892)

People are complicated: They have enormous capacity for both good and evil. Seminary students preparing a lecture on the Good Samaritan may help a bystander in need but instead may walk right on by if they are running a few minutes late (Darley & Batson, 1973). This situationism—the power of seemingly “small” changes in situations to influence behavior—is a profound lesson of social psychology (Ross & Nisbett, 2011). Yet surprisingly, this insight has not been adequately integrated into an understanding of social bias, which we define as both an affective and cognitive response (i.e., prejudice and stereotype, respectively) that drives negative treatment (discrimination) because of a perception of another person’s social group membership. This review addresses a specific problem: When people are likely to behave in biased ways that harm others, how can one effectively intervene to encourage more positive, prosocial, and nonbiased behavior?

In modern society, it is common to take a direct approach. Many organizations (e.g., schools, corporations) attempt to rid staff of undesirable biases by way of implicit-bias training, which typically makes people aware of bias and offers cognitive strategies to mitigate it (but see Kawakami et al., 2008). There is no doubt that there is value in broad public education efforts concerning bias. There is, moreover, a particular need to recognize systematic forms of bias so people can begin to grapple with these as a society (Rucker & Richeson, 2021). Yet research shows that such bias-reduction strategies are often ineffective and may even backfire in real-world contexts (Forscher et al., 2019; Lai et al., 2016; Paluck et al., 2021). One challenge is that if bias is “in the air,” it may be so ubiquitous and multiply reinforced that it may be difficult to counter directly. Certainly, an older tradition also emphasizes the potential to reduce bias through broad and sustained situational factors, especially intergroup contact, particularly under certain conditions (e.g., equal status; Allport, 1954; Pettigrew & Tropp, 2006). Yet such approaches may often not be available to organizations. What, then, can organizations do (Onyeador et al., 2021)?

Common approaches are based on a strong assumption that the cause of a person’s biased behavior lies in that person’s deeply embedded internal qualities. But what if the focus is instead placed on the interplay between the person and the situation, especially as interpreted by the person (Ross & Nisbett, 2011)? This focus suggests that even if all people are exposed to bias and have the potential to behave in biased ways, this is not all they are, could be, or want to be. The critical questions become, “How do situations evoke biased or nonbiased potentials in individuals?” and “How can situations be altered so that people become the better selves they really want to be?”

We call this approach “sidelining bias.” Consider a metaphor from sports. Imagine the person as a team comprising many players (working selves). Each player can pull the team in a different direction. If one player has the potential to hinder the team’s potential to win the game in a given circumstance (e.g., a biased working self), then the strategy is to replace that player and bring in someone else better suited for the situation, that is, to sideline the problematic player. The potential for bias still exists on the team (in the person), but it is latent. It is no longer active. It has been benched.

Thus, we theorize that it is often helpful to conceptualize people as inherently complex, with multiple, often contradictory, selves, identities, and goals. In doing so, we integrate social bias with advances in basic theorizing about the development of personality and motivation, including McConnell’s (2011) multiple self-aspects framework, which describes the self as “a collection of multiple, context-dependent selves” (p. 3); Mischel and Morf’s (2003) theory of personality as a cognitive-affective processing system comprising many if-then contingences (“if X situation, then think, feel, and behave Y”); and Dweck’s (2017) theory of personality and motivation, which posits that “BEATs” (sets of Beliefs, Emotions, and Action Tendencies) develop to serve needs and arise in specific situations to help the person accomplish goals relevant to these needs.

According to this broad theoretical approach, people develop and can have available multiple perspectives from which they interpret the world and from which their feelings and action may arise. We call these working selves. These working selves can remain latent and inactive until they become functional (i.e., until they would be helpful for working toward goals in a specific situation), at which time they may come on-line to guide behavior (see Moskowitz, 2002). It is entirely possible for a person to have some working selves that are biased (e.g., a political-ideology self) and others that are nonbiased or even antibiased (e.g., a professional self). When the person is conceptualized this way, it is possible to ask when negative or biased selves are likely to emerge (Spencer et al., 2016). Moreover, one can learn how to alter situations to elevate alternative positive working selves—namely, by foregrounding ideal goals that people will endorse; that they can organize their thoughts, feelings, and behavior around; and for which bias would be nonfunctional. (As we discuss later, these are often prosocial goals defined by professional roles.) The goal is to sideline bias, to reduce its accessibility in a real-world context or its relevance to the goals the person is seeking to achieve, and thus to reduce its hold on consequential behavior.

The sidelining approach is fundamentally different from common bias-reduction approaches (Fig. 1, Table 1). First, this approach treats bias (or nonbias, or antibias) as an expression of the working self and the kinds of goals that this self can pursue in a given context. This shifts responsibility and causality from bad individuals (e.g., “racists”) to bad contexts (those that elicit biased selves and behaviors). The sidelining approach thus challenges the architects of contexts to recognize these dynamics and, when necessary, to change contexts to elicit better selves and behaviors (Fiske et al., 2004; Murphy & Walton, 2013).

Fig. 1.

Two approaches to contending with bias. The bias-reduction approach emphasizes bias in the person; interventions based on this approach are designed to reduce bias and, in turn, discrimination. The sidelining-bias approach emphasizes the expression of bias; interventions based on this approach are designed to mitigate discrimination by elevating a nonbiased (or antibiased) alternative self and ideal goals for which biased behavior would not be functional.

Table 1.

Comparison of Two Approaches to Contending With Bias

Feature	Popular approach:reducing bias	Situationist approach:sidelining bias
Goal	To change the person, by training bias out of the person	To activate an alternative working self with ideal goals that are endorsed by the person and for which bias would be not functional, thereby reducing the impact of bias on behavior
Focus	Individual differences	Contextual differences
Emphasis on bias	Primary and explicit^a	Secondary or absent
How people are treated	As problematic, with deficits	As good, with strengths that can be used for working toward ideal goals
Primary outcomes	Measures of bias in the person	Real-life consequences of bias of inherent importance

Not all bias-reduction interventions address bias explicitly (e.g., Kawakami et al., 2008).

Second, the sidelining-bias approach is aimed at expressions of bias and cycles of bias, not at reducing the person’s capacity for bias (the latent potential for bias). Thus, the intent is not to change a deeply rooted aspect of individuals, at least not immediately or directly. Instead, to achieve improvement in long-term, real-world consequences of inherent importance (e.g., lower rates of removing racially stigmatized children from school), the approach is aimed at redirecting how individuals interact in pivotal contexts, including especially how they make sense of and respond to treatment from others in recursive cycles that can produce lasting effects (Walton & Wilson, 2018).

Third, a significant challenge bias-reduction approaches face is that, in focusing on increasing awareness and recognition of bias, they can seem deficit based, as representing people in negative ways, and consequently provoke backlash, despite intentions to bring people together (Brannon et al., 2018). By contrast, the sidelining approach is asset based; it identifies people in pivotal roles in circumstances in which bias is available and can contribute to discrimination. These people may be asked to reflect on ideals they hold in their roles and how they are working or can work toward these ideals by behaving in positive, prosocial ways, sometimes in the face of the possibility of bias. Thus, people are never defined as biased; they are assumed to be morally good or, at least, to have the potential to become so. Moreover, by beginning from an asset-based perspective, this approach allows for discussions of bias to be strategically integrated, as needed. In the following review of examples of sidelining bias, we note ways in which bias has been directly raised in certain intervention procedures and cases in which it has not been raised directly.

Next, we present classic and contemporary research to show how a focus on context-based goals can sideline bias. Rather than discussing research aimed at reducing bias itself or focused solely on controlled lab settings, we present research that follows theory that recommends focusing on tests of interventions with the following qualities: (a) random assignment to treatment or control conditions, so as to identify causal effects; (b) longitudinal assessment of outcomes; and (c) use of outcomes of inherent, real-world importance (Campbell & Brauer, 2020; Okonofua et al., 2020). The interventions we discuss illustrate the use of a variety of procedures (see Tables 2 and 3 for summaries).

Table 2.

Summary of Interventions Designed to Sideline Bias in Peer Behavior

Intervention	Participants and context	Potential biased selves	Method used to elevate a self with ideal context-based goals	Outcome
Robbers Cave (Sherif et al., 1961)	24 twelve-year-old boys, separated into two teams of 12, so as to create a competitive context and enhance in-group solidarity and out-group hostility	Competitive selves of boys in camp teams biased against one another	Change to objective features of the situation: The teams needed to work together to secure resources, such as a water supply, money needed to watch a favorite movie, and tools needed to prepare food, build a campsite, and repair a means of transportation. Bias was not mentioned.	Reduced out-group hostility
Jigsaw classroom (Aronson, 2002)	303 fifth- and sixth-grade students in schools that had recently been racially desegregated	White, Black, and Mexican American students’ competitive selves, potentially racially biased against one another	Change to objective features of the situation: The students needed to work together to learn and perform well. Each child was responsible for learning a portion of an assignment and then for teaching that portion to other students. Later, the children were tested on the whole assignment. Bias was not mentioned.	Increased empathy and liking for other students within and across group lines; improved performance among racially minoritized students
Inclusivity norm (Murrar et al., 2020)	2,490 racially diverse college students	Students’ competitive selves, potentially biased against members of other racial groups	Change to cues to social norms in the situation: Inclusive norms were made salient. The students saw videos and posters representing norms of inclusivity at their school. Bias was mentioned as counternormative.	Perception of a more inclusive climate among all racial-ethnic groups; greater sense of belonging, perception of more positive treatment from peers and professors, and higher grades among students from marginalized backgrounds

Table 3.

Summary of Interventions Designed to Sideline Bias in Hierarchical Contexts

Intervention	Participants and context	Potential biased selves	Method used to elevate a self with ideal context-based goals	Outcome
Empathic discipline (Okonofua et al., 2016, 2022)	Middle-school teachers in classrooms with racially diverse students	Teachers’ selves that potentially view racially stigmatized students as troublemakers who interfere with their ability to teach effectively	Structured reflection exercise: In a reading-and-writing exercise, teachers reflected on their goals to understand, value, and respect students’ perspectives, especially when students misbehave, and to maintain positive relationships to help students improve. Bias was mentioned secondarily.^a	Reduced suspension rates overall and primarily among racially stigmatized students; 45% reduction in racial disparities in suspension rates
Relationship orienting (Walton et al., 2021)	Middle- and high-school teachers working with formerly incarcerated students	Teachers’ selves that potentially view formerly incarcerated students as “criminals” who will not try and who will disrupt their classrooms	Structured reflection exercise for students and new, personalized information for teachers: Teachers of these students received a letter telling them that a child reentering school from juvenile detention had specifically requested support from them. These letters introduced the children personally, using the students’ own descriptions of their goals, values, and challenges, and asked the teachers to support the children. Bias was not mentioned.	Reduced rate of disciplinary action by the schools; reduction of 40 percentage points in the rate of recidivism back to juvenile detention
Empathic supervision (Okonofua et al., 2021)	Probation and parole officers working with adults on probation or parole	Officers’ selves that potentially view adults on probation or parole as “criminals” likely to reoffend	Structured reflection exercise: In a reading-and-writing exercise, the officers reflected on their goals to value and respect clients’ perspectives, especially when the clients struggle, and also reflected on how helping clients succeed can both serve the clients and protect the community. Bias was mentioned indirectly as a belief that would make one hypocritical.	Reduced rates of violations of the terms of clients’ sentences; reduced rates of recidivism
Unstereotyping (Tan et al., 2022)	Professional advertisers developing an ad campaign	Advertisers’ selves that may produce stereotypic representations based on consumer data	Structured reflection: In a professional workshop, advertisers reflected on their goals to create campaigns that went beyond simple demographic categories and to not revert to stereotypes. Bias was raised secondarily, as a barrier to realizing ideal goals.	Less stereotypical communications

The materials included specific content designed (a) to help teachers avoid a pejorative interpretation of any differences in students’ rates of misbehavior along racial-ethnic or social-class lines and (b) to reinforce their commitment to taking an empathic approach, especially with students from stigmatized racial-ethnic or lower-social-class backgrounds. Specifically, the teachers read that although all adolescents crave respect from adults, those from stigmatized backgrounds can be especially vigilant to cues of disrespect because often they have heard discouraging stories about how their group is treated in school. For this reason, the materials stated, listening to, understanding, and sustaining relationships with students in these groups is particularly important. Critically, this content, which made identity threat among students salient, neither accused teachers of being biased nor blamed students for disproportionate misbehavior.

Implications for Intervention

Classic and contemporary research illustrates ways to elevate, within specific contexts, ideal goals that are incompatible with discrimination and that people will endorse, and shows that this can improve behavior and pivotal outcomes.

Sidelining bias in peer interactions

Classic and more contemporary research shows the potential to sideline bias to improve peer relations (Table 2). For instance, in Sherif et al.’s (1961) Robbers Cave study, elevating superordinate goals, such as the need to repair a shared water supply, successfully reduced animosity between two groups of boys, despite the absence of a direct effort to reduce bias. Likewise, Aronson’s (2002) “jigsaw classroom” intervention used cooperative-learning techniques to create common goals concerning learning and teaching in newly desegregated classrooms and to replace competitive norms. This both improved liking across racial-ethnic lines and reduced inequalities in achievement.

In more recent research, Murrar and colleagues (2020) used posters and videos to highlight inclusivity norms in college classrooms. This led students of all racial-ethnic groups to perceive a more inclusive climate in class and improved the class experience (e.g., sense of belonging) and grades, especially among students from marginalized backgrounds.

Sidelining bias in hierarchical interactions: elevating ideal professional selves

Some of the most egregious discrimination occurs among people in positions of authority or influence, such as teachers or law-enforcement officers. Yet people in positions of power also often have role-based goals that are incompatible with bias (e.g., helping all children to grow). Is it possible to elevate foundational professional goals, such as the goal of service, in education, criminal justice, and advertising (Grant & Hofmann, 2011)? Would this improve outcomes among the people who are served and mitigate disparities that result from bias? Table 3 reviews studies in which this opportunity was considered.

Teachers’ response to misbehavior in class: the empathic-discipline intervention

Evidence suggests that bias contributes to racial disparities in school discipline (Okonofua & Eberhardt, 2015). Rather than attempt to rid teachers of racial bias, we implemented an intervention focused on evoking teachers’ professional goals to help all children learn and grow (Okonofua et al., 2016). In this empathic-discipline intervention, teachers reviewed exemplary models of how other teachers respond to students when they misbehave (i.e., understanding and valuing students’ perspectives and maintaining caring, respectful relationships, rather than treating students punitively or leaving the relationships). These teachers were then asked to write a letter to new teachers to help them maintain positive relationships with students, even when those students misbehave. Thus, the intervention focused on teachers’ professional goals to help and support children. Table 4 illustrates this sidelining process. Moreover, there was a particular focus on helping those students who face systemic biases, whose identities are regularly threatened at school and who may thus be most sensitive to negative treatment (see the footnote in Table 3). From the perspective of teachers’ professional goals, stereotyping students and discriminating against them would not be functional (Okonofua et al., 2020). In two randomized placebo-controlled trials with teachers of thousands of students across more than 20 cities, the intervention meaningfully cut suspension rates overall. Moreover, it reduced racial disparities in suspension rates by 45% over the intervention year and the subsequent school year (Okonofua et al., 2016, 2022).

Table 4.

Examples of Intervention Participants’ Open-Ended Responses That Illustrate the Sidelining Process

Intervention	Participants and context	Open-ended responses
Empathic discipline (Okonofua et al., 2016)	Teachers asked, “What are some of the ways that you try to build positive relationships with your students, or things that you would like to try in the future to improve your relationships with your students?”	“[I] greet every student at the door with a smile every day no matter what has occurred the day before.” “[I] answer their questions thoughtfully and respectfully no matter what their academic history with me has been.” “I NEVER hold grudges. I try to remember that they are all the son or daughter of someone who loves them more than anything in the world. They are the light of someone’s life!”
Relationship orienting (Walton et al., 2021)	Teachers who had just received the one-page letter introducing a child reentering school from juvenile detention; describing the child’s goals, values, and challenges; and requesting the teacher’s support	“First thoughts, in complete honesty, would be ‘oh great’ or ‘why me’. I would think about what problems he may add to my class. But, as I read more of the letter and see that [student name] CHOSE ME to be his mentor/confidant, I am immediately reminded that he is a child that has made some mistakes and wants to change. He deserves that chance and, if I can, I want to help. Reading about his passions made me see him more as a person than just another student with problems.”
		“Part of the news about [student name] is that I have been chosen as a mentor. I think that any fears I might have had regarding conflict with a student recently released from a [juvenile justice center] would be ameliorated by this fact. The introduction letter would lead me to anticipate a positive relationship. [student name] has goals and he has challenges. My job as an educator is to help students meet their goals and overcome their challenges. I would look forward to working with [student name].”
Empathic supervision (Okonofua et al., 2021)	Probation and parole officers asked to write a letter to a new officer in their department	“You have chosen a wonderful career becoming a Parole/Probation Officer. Although at times the job can be demanding and somewhat stressful, it is also very rewarding and fulfilling. Prior to working in the Criminal Justice System, most people have a certain perspective regarding crime and the people who commit it. Although some of what you think and see on T.V. or in the media is accurate, it is the not whole picture. Upon becoming an officer and being assigned a caseload, you get to meet people from all ‘walks of life’ and will interact with a side of the world most people only see and hear about on T.V. and in the media. It is not all bad. Although we do not get news or media coverage for the work we do, it is very satisfying and personally gratifying for you to know that you can make and are making a difference in the lives of offenders and keeping the community you live in safer.”
Unstereotyping (Tan et al., 2022)	Advertising professionals asked to describe the impact of the intervention	“There are certain things you need to understand about yourself and the creative process to make sure you’re not just veering back into stereotypes and to deliver really exciting creative content.”“The decisions that you make don’t just affect your clients, they affect humanity, and that is, you know, a great responsibility.”“Stereotype’s not about casting, it’s not just about the look of what you create, it is really about the whole process of creation.”

Teachers’ support for court-involved youths: the relationship-orienting intervention

Some of the most disadvantaged children in school are those who have been convicted of a crime and spent time in juvenile detention. These students, disproportionately boys and racially minoritized students, are readily seen as potential sources of violence—not as children facing challenges and striving to meet them. These stereotypes can guide how teachers interact with students when they return to class from detention. In another study (Walton et al., 2021), we developed an intervention to elevate youths’ own voices in introducing themselves to an educator. A few days after reentering school from juvenile detention, participants reflected on their positive goals in school and challenges they faced, and how developing positive relationships with adults could help them succeed. They were also asked to identify an adult in school who could be important for them and what they would want that person to know about who they were as a person. Each student’s responses were then included in a one-page letter to the educator the student chose, asking for the educator’s support. Tested in an initial small, randomized controlled trial, this relationship-orienting intervention reduced recidivism to juvenile detention through the semester following release from 69% to 29%. In an additional study, teachers who received these letters expressed more positivity and greater commitment toward the students than did teachers who did not receive the letters. They saw the young people as students to help, not as criminals (Table 4).

As did the empathic-discipline intervention, the relationship-orienting intervention helped teachers become their best professional selves in their relationships with students. Biases based on race, gender, or criminal history are dysfunctional for this goal.

Probation and parole officers’ support for clients: the empathic-supervision intervention

A key factor in recidivism among formerly convicted and sentenced adults is their relationship with their probation or parole officer. A return to prison is often due to a violation of the terms of the sentence and is reported by the officer; yet when incidents are ambiguous, officers exert judgment. A positive relationship with an officer can also provide support that helps prevent violations. Yet biases may interfere with such relationships. Can these biases also be sidelined by evoking an officer’s professional goals?

The empathic-supervision intervention focuses on officers’ goals to serve their communities. Interviews with officers indicated that they shared a goal to help their clients in order to support their neighborhoods. This information informed the design of the intervention. In the intervention, a 30-min online module, officers considered how showing care and concern for the individuals they supervised could help those individuals come to trust and respect them in return, and thereby allow them to more effectively address those individuals’ needs and keep the officers’ communities safe, welcoming, and thriving. Thus, the treatment highlighted officers’ professional goals and the means to attain them in ways that made bias against formerly incarcerated people dysfunctional, sidelining it, as illustrated in Table 4. Over the course of 10 months, relative to a randomized control condition, the intervention reduced documented violations and reduced recidivism by 11% among the approximately 20,000 adults on probation or parole whom the officers served (Okonofua et al., 2021).

Sidelining bias in mass communications: the unstereotyping intervention

Stereotypical representations of social groups (e.g., racial and ethnic stereotypes, gender roles) dominate advertisements in mainstream media (Grau & Zotos, 2016; Mastro & Stern, 2003) to pernicious effect (Behm-Morawitz & Mastro 2009; Halliwell & Dittmar, 2004).

To ameliorate such effects, Tan et al. (2022) implemented an intervention that elevated the professional goal of being creative among advertisers developing brand communications in the United States, the United Kingdom, and The Netherlands. Again, there was no direct focus on reducing bias. Instead, a 1-day workshop emphasized how being an effective advertising professional means viewing the consumer as a unique human being, and how this is the antithesis of stereotyping. This unstereotyping intervention targeted a crucial step in the development of an advertisement campaign, the generation of a label on the basis of consumer data—aggregate demographic information about the brands’ consumers—that guide an entire campaign, including the content and placement of advertisements. Advertisers created a label before and after the workshop. Compared with a randomized control group of advertisers who did not attend the workshop and showed no change in the stereotypicality of their labels, those who attended the workshop produced labels 6 months after the workshop that were 35% less stereotypical, as rated by an independent sample from the general public in each country (i.e., focus groups). The results suggest that elevating creativity goals can reduce stereotyping in advertisements that reach and affect millions of consumers around the world. (See Table 4 for examples of how advertisers described this potential of elevating creativity goals.)

Where Else Can Bias Be Sidelined?

By appreciating the complexity of people, the sidelining approach helps people at risk of behaving in bad, biased, and harmful ways to behave in ways that are good, antibiased, and supportive of others. It is exciting to consider the array of real-world contexts in which it may be possible to sideline bias. For example, can physicians’ prosocial and professional motivations be elevated to improve equity in health? How could sidelining work in law enforcement? Are there ways to sideline bias more broadly than by focusing on specific professional roles, such as by elevating ideal moral selves? As different contexts are explored, can researchers learn more about the relative effectiveness and fit of different methods to activate nonbiased selves and goals, such as making specific changes to situations (Aronson, 2002), cuing social norms (e.g., Murrar et al., 2020), implementing active reflection methods (e.g., Okonofua et al., 2022), and providing people with novel, personalized information (Walton et al., 2021)?

Many of the examples we have given involve, at least in part, deliberative processes that take place over time. Could sidelining also help in heated moments, when behavior is shaped by automatic processes, such as when police officers make on-the-spot decisions in potentially threatening situations (Sassenberg et al., 2022)? It will also be exciting to explore individual differences, including differences in the availability of both biased and non- or antibiased working selves. Do such individual differences moderate the effectiveness of the sidelining approach?

Finally, can the sidelining approach be used to erode the very potential for bias over time? Although the consequences of biased and nonbiased behavior may often be interpersonal (e.g., improved vs. worsened trust), they can also be intrapersonal. As contexts elicit nonbiased goals and selves more frequently, and as people use these selves more, could people become less biased (Moskowitz et al., 1999)? Further, can the sidelining approach be integrated with general bias-education efforts? Once a sidelining approach has been implemented and people are working toward ideal goals, will they be more receptive to and less threatened by information about social bias (cf. Rucker & Richeson, 2021)?

Social psychology gained early prominence through dramatic demonstrations that even normal people could behave in terrible ways in specific situations. The sidelining approach is intended to accomplish the inverse: to help normal people behaving in biased ways behave more positively, and thereby help everyone—both themselves and those with whom they interact—flourish.

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

We thank Mahzarin Banaji, Ivuoma Onyeador, and the reviewers for helpful comments on an earlier version of this manuscript. Portions of this work were presented at the Social Cognition Preconference at the February 2022 annual meeting of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology in San Francisco, California.

Transparency

Action Editor: Robert L. Goldstone

Editor: Robert L. Goldstone

ORCID iDs

Jason A. Okonofua

Gregory M. Walton

References

Allport

G. W.

(1954). The nature of prejudice. Addison-Wesley.

Aronson

(2002). Building empathy, compassion, and achievement in the jigsaw classroom. In Aronson

(Ed.), Improving academic achievement: Impact of psychological factors on education (pp. 209–225). Academic Press. https://doi.org/10.1016/B978-012064455-1/50013-0

Behm-Morawitz

Mastro

(2009). The effects of the sexualization of female video game characters on gender stereotyping and female self-concept. Sex Roles, 61(11–12), 808–823. https://doi.org/10.1007/s11199-009-9683-8

Brannon

T. N.

Carter

E. R.

Murdock-Perriera

L. A.

Higginbotham

G. D.

(2018). From backlash to inclusion for all: Instituting diversity efforts to maximize benefits across group lines. Social Issues and Policy Review, 12(1), 57–90. https://doi.org/10.1111/sipr.12040

Campbell

M. R.

Brauer

(2020). Incorporating social-marketing insights into prejudice research: Advancing theory and demonstrating real-world applications. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 15(3), 608–629. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691619896622

Darley

J. M.

Batson

C. D.

(1973). “From Jerusalem to Jericho”: A study of situational and dispositional variables in helping behavior. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 27(1), 100–108. https://doi.org/10.1037/h0034449

Dweck

C. S.

(2017). From needs to goals and representations: Foundations for a unified theory of motivation, personality, and development. Psychological Review, 124(6), 689–719. http://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000082

Fiske

S. T.

Harris

L. T.

Cuddy

A. J. C.

(2004). Why ordinary people torture enemy prisoners. Science, 306(5701), 1482–1483. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1103788

Forscher

P. S.

Lai

C. K.

Axt

J. R.

Ebersole

C. R.

Herman

Devine

P. G.

Nosek

B. A.

(2019). A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 522–559. https://doi.org/10.1037/pspa0000160

10.

Grant

A. M.

Hofmann

D. A.

(2011). It’s not all about me: Motivating hand hygiene among health care professionals by focusing on patients. Psychological Science, 22(12), 1494–1499. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797611419172

11.

Grau

S. L.

Zotos

Y. C.

(2016). Gender stereotypes in advertising: A review of current research. International Journal of Advertising, 35(5), 761–770. https://doi.org/10.1080/02650487.2016.1203556

12.

Halliwell

Dittmar

(2004). Does size matter? The impact of model’s body size on women’s body-focused anxiety and advertising effectiveness. Journal of Social and Clinical Psychology, 23(1), 104–122. https://doi.org/10.1521/jscp.23.1.104.26989

13.

Kawakami

Steele

J. R.

Cifa

Phills

C. E.

Dovidio

J. F.

(2008). Approaching math increases math = me and math = pleasant. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 44(3), 818–825. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2007.07.009

14.

Lai

C. K.

Skinner

A. L.

Cooley

Murrar

Brauer

Devos

Calanchini

Xiao

Y. J.

Pedram

Marshburn

C. K.

Simon

Blanchar

J. C.

Joy-Gaba

J. A.

Conway

Redford

Klein

R. A.

Roussos

Schellhaas

F. M. H.

Burns

. . . Nosek

B. A.

(2016). Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. Journal of Experimental Psychology: General, 145(8), 1001–1016. http://dx.doi.org/10.1037/xge0000179

15.

Mastro

D. E.

Stern

S. R.

(2003). Representations of race in television commercials: A content analysis of prime-time advertising. Journal of Broadcasting & Electronic Media, 47(4), 638–647. https://doi.org/10.1207/s15506878jobem4704_9

16.

McConnell

A. R.

(2011). The multiple self-aspects framework: Self-concept representation and its implications. Personality and Social Psychology Review, 15(1), 3–27. https://doi.org/10.1177/1088868310371101

17.

Mischel

Morf

C. C.

(2003). The self as a psycho-social dynamic processing system: A meta-perspective on a century of the self in psychology. In Leary

M. R.

Tangney

J. P.

(Eds.), Handbook of self and identity (pp. 15–43). Guilford Press.

18.

Moskowitz

G. B.

(2002). Preconscious effects of temporary goals on attention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 38(4), 397–404. https://doi.org/10.1016/S0022-1031(02)00001-X

19.

Moskowitz

G. B.

Gollwitzer

P. M.

Wasel

Schaal

(1999). Preconscious control of stereotype activation through chronic egalitarian goals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 77(1), 167–184. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.77.1.167

20.

Murphy

M. C.

Walton

G. M.

(2013). From prejudiced people to prejudiced places: A social-contextual approach to prejudice. In Stangor

Crandall

C. S.

(Eds.), Stereotyping and prejudice (pp. 181–204). Psychology Press.

21.

Murrar

Campbell

M. R.

Brauer

(2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 889–897. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5

22.

Okonofua

J. A.

Eberhardt

J. L.

(2015). Two strikes: Race and the disciplining of young students. Psychological Science, 26(5), 617–624. https://doi.org/10.1177/0956797615570365

23.

Okonofua

J. A.

Goyer

J. P.

Lindsay

C. A.

Haugabrook

Walton

G. M.

(2022). A scalable empathic-mindset intervention reduces group disparities in school suspensions. Science Advances, 8(12), Article eabj0691. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj0691

24.

Okonofua

J. A.

Paunesku

Walton

G. M.

(2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 113(19), 5221–5226. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113

25.

Okonofua

J. A.

Perez

A. D.

Darling-Hammond

(2020). When policy and psychology meet: Mitigating the consequences of bias in schools. Science Advances, 6(42), Article eaba9479. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.aba9479

26.

Okonofua

J. A.

Saadatian

Ocampo

Ruiz

Oxholm

P. D.

(2021). A scalable empathic supervision intervention to mitigate recidivism from probation and parole. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, USA, 118(14), Article e2018036118. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2018036118

27.

Onyeador

I. N.

Hudson

S. T. J.

Lewis

N. A.

Jr. (2021). Moving beyond implicit bias training: Policy insights for increasing organizational diversity. Policy Insights From the Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 19–26. https://doi.org/10.1177/2372732220983840

28.

Paluck

E. L.

Porat

Clark

C. S.

Green

D. P.

(2021). Prejudice reduction: Progress and challenges. Annual Review of Psychology, 72, 533–560. https://doi.org/10.1146/annurev-psych-071620-030619

29.

Pettigrew

T. F.

Tropp

L. R.

(2006). A meta-analytic test of intergroup contact theory. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 90(5), 751–783. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.90.5.751

30.

Ross

Nisbett

R. E.

(2011). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Pinter & Martin Publishers.

31.

Rucker

J. M.

Richeson

J. A.

(2021). Toward an understanding of structural racism: Implications for criminal justice. Science, 374(6565), 286–290. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.abj7779

32.

Sassenberg

Winter

Becker

Ditrich

Scholl

Moskowitz

G. B.

(2022). Flexibility mindsets: Reducing biases that result from spontaneous processing. European Review of Social Psychology, 33(1), 171–213. https://doi.org/10.1080/10463283.2021.1959124

33.

Sherif

Harvey

O. J.

Hood

W. R.

Sherif

C. W.

White

(1961). Intergroup conflict and cooperation: The Robbers Cave experiment. Institute of Group Relations, University of Oklahoma.

34.

Spencer

K. B.

Charbonneau

A. K.

Glaser

(2016). Implicit bias and policing. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 10(1), 50–63. https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12210

35.

Tan

Parashar

Ahmetoglu

Harris

L. T.

(2022). Marketing to unstereotype audiences: Linking stereotypes and creativity in advertising. Manuscript submitted for publication. Department of Experimental Psychology, University College London.

36.

Walton

G. M.

Okonofua

J. A.

Remington Cunningham

Hurst

Pinedo

Weitz

Ospina

J. P.

Tate

Eberhardt

J. L.

(2021). Lifting the bar: A relationship-orienting intervention reduces recidivism among children reentering school from juvenile detention. Psychological Science, 32(11), 1747–1767. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211013801

37.

Walton

G. M.

Wilson

T. D.

(2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617–655. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115

Sidelining Bias: A Situationist Approach to Reduce the Consequences of Bias in Real-World Contexts

Abstract

Keywords

Implications for Intervention

Sidelining bias in peer interactions

Sidelining bias in hierarchical interactions: elevating ideal professional selves

Teachers’ response to misbehavior in class: the empathic-discipline intervention

Teachers’ support for court-involved youths: the relationship-orienting intervention

Probation and parole officers’ support for clients: the empathic-supervision intervention

Sidelining bias in mass communications: the unstereotyping intervention

Where Else Can Bias Be Sidelined?

Recommended Reading

Footnotes

Acknowledgements

Transparency

ORCID iDs

References