Journal of Applied Psychology, Vol 109(11), Nov 2024, 1669-1692; doi:10.1037/apl0001215
Academic interest in reducing discrimination has produced substantial research testing interventions to mitigate biased outcomes. However, disparate findings and a scarcity of studies examining work-related behavioral measures make it challenging to determine which interventions are better suited to reduce workplace discrimination. Derived from the tripartite theory of attitudes and the principle of compatibility, I develop a conceptual model mapping the attitude focus of interventions and code studies in this literature from the past two decades for these common properties. Based on a meta-analysis of 70 articles totaling 208 effect sizes, I test this conceptual model, finding that it helps explain why some interventions to reduce discrimination yield superior outcomes relative to others. In particular, results indicate that passive interventions, such as short-term education or reminders of bias processes, are largely ineffective in shifting behavior. Conversely, the class of interventions that targets behavior directly by attempting to inhibit the manifestation of bias (e.g., making individuals accountable for their decisions or changing social norms) emerged as the most helpful category of interventions in this area. Overall, results support a key prediction of the attitude dimension consistency perspective, demonstrating that aligning the attitude dimension primarily targeted by an intervention and the outcome measured could lead to improved results in this area. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)