Prejudice refers to negative attitudes, stereotypes, or discriminatory beliefs toward individuals based on their group membership, such as race, gender, or ethnicity.
Intergroup bias involves preferential treatment or unfair behavior toward one’s own group compared to others, often manifesting as favoritism or discrimination against outsiders.
Wood, C., Persson, S., Roberts, L., Allchin, O., & Simmonds-Buckley, M. (2025). Does confronting prejudice reduce intergroup bias? A meta-analytic review. Psychological Bulletin, 151(2), 192–216. https://doi.org/10.1037/bul0000466
Key Points
- The systematic review thoroughly investigated how confronting prejudice impacts the reduction of intergroup bias.
- A comprehensive collection of 32 experimental studies (19 separate reports) was included, providing a total of 91 different effect sizes for detailed analysis.
- Overall, confronting prejudice demonstrated a significant, medium-sized effect on reducing intergroup bias, with an effect size estimate of g = 0.54.
- The observed effects showed variations depending on how prejudice was confronted and the methods of bias measurement used; however, the overall outcomes remained robust and consistent across conditions.
- Although some publication bias was detected in the included studies, subsequent analyses demonstrated that it did not significantly influence the overall conclusions.
Rationale
The systematic review was conducted to resolve ongoing uncertainties in psychological literature regarding the effectiveness of confrontation as a strategy for reducing intergroup bias.
Previous studies have yielded mixed results, indicating effectiveness in some contexts but not others, creating ambiguity within the field.
Past research highlighted discrepancies related to the style of confrontation, the types of prejudice addressed, and the contexts in which confrontation occurs, leaving significant gaps and inconsistencies.
The present review aimed to synthesize this body of research to offer clearer guidance on when and how confronting prejudice might effectively reduce bias, providing greater clarity to researchers, policymakers, and practitioners who seek empirically supported strategies to combat prejudice.
Method
- This systematic review strictly adhered to the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses (PRISMA) and Meta-Analysis Reporting Standards guidelines, ensuring high-quality standards in conducting and reporting the review process.
- Literature searches were performed comprehensively across multiple databases, including PsycInfo, Scopus, Web of Science, and OSFPreprints. The search period spanned from March 2023 to January 2024.
- The search strategy utilized various terms to capture broad aspects of prejudice, including racism, sexism, homophobia, transphobia, xenophobia, ableism, and ageism, as well as a range of confrontation terms like bystander intervention, ally action, confrontation, and response to bias.
- Criteria for inclusion specified that studies must be experimental in nature, include clear confrontation conditions, and utilize measurable outcomes related to intergroup bias. Studies that were non-experimental, lacked a clear confrontation or comparison condition, or did not directly measure bias were excluded.
- The final review incorporated 32 experimental studies reported across 19 publications.
- Data extraction involved meticulous systematic coding of key study characteristics such as study design, participant demographics, confrontation type, bias measurement approach, and setting. Effect sizes were calculated using the Comprehensive Meta-Analysis software, ensuring a precise and consistent analysis across studies.
Statistical Measures
- A sophisticated three-level meta-analytic approach was employed to accurately account for multiple interdependent effect sizes within individual studies, thereby maintaining the integrity and reliability of the statistical analysis.
- Hedges’s g was selected as the statistical measure to quantify standardized mean differences across conditions, providing an unbiased estimation of the intervention effects.
- Additional statistical methods, such as Egger’s regression tests and funnel plot analyses, were used specifically to assess and correct potential publication bias, enhancing the credibility and reliability of the reported findings.
Results
- The review conclusively found that confronting prejudice was effective in significantly reducing intergroup bias, achieving a meaningful medium-sized overall effect (g = 0.54, p < .001), despite observing notable heterogeneity across study results.
- Further moderator analyses revealed consistency in effectiveness across varied factors such as the type of confrontation employed (e.g., direct versus indirect), identity of the person confronting prejudice (targeted individuals or allies), and whether the confrontation occurred publicly or privately.
- While analyses did reveal evidence of publication bias, corrections for this bias confirmed that the results remained robust and significant even after adjustments.
Insight
The findings underscore the practical effectiveness of confrontation as a strategic tool in reducing prejudice.
The study offers crucial evidence indicating that both direct targets of prejudice and allies who choose to intervene can successfully mitigate bias through confrontation.
The review suggests a promising avenue for social interventions aimed at enhancing intergroup relations, supporting inclusive behaviors, and reducing discriminatory attitudes.
This work underscores the necessity for future research to address the durability of these effects over longer periods, exploring variations across diverse participant demographics to ensure the applicability and generalizability of confrontation-based interventions in various societal contexts.
Clinical Implications
These results offer practitioners, educators, policymakers, and social justice advocates actionable insights, confirming that confrontation-based strategies can be effectively integrated into diversity training programs and bias-reduction workshops.
Practitioners should feel encouraged to foster environments that actively teach and empower individuals in allyship and confrontation techniques to cultivate greater inclusivity and equity.
However, it remains important to acknowledge and prepare for potential challenges, such as negative reactions or backlash that can arise from confrontation, particularly when marginalized individuals themselves directly challenge prejudice.
Strengths
This study had several methodological strengths, including:
- Strict adherence to established PRISMA guidelines, ensuring high methodological rigor.
- Utilization of advanced meta-analytic statistical methods that accounted for multiple, interdependent effect sizes, improving the precision and reliability of results.
- Comprehensive and systematic literature search methodology that minimized potential study omissions.
- In-depth exploration and analysis of moderating factors, enhancing understanding of the conditions under which confronting prejudice is most effective.
Limitations
This study also had several limitations, including:
- Predominantly included studies based on White, student populations primarily from the United States, restricting the generalizability of the findings to more diverse global and demographic contexts.
- Insufficient data on the long-term sustainability of confrontation effects on bias reduction.
- The presence of publication bias, despite being statistically addressed, represents a methodological limitation potentially impacting interpretation.
Socratic Questions
- How could cultural or societal norms influence the outcomes of confronting prejudice?
- Under what conditions might confrontation inadvertently reinforce rather than diminish intergroup biases?
- What complementary approaches might enhance the effectiveness of confrontation-based interventions?
- How do the personal attributes or identities of individuals confronting prejudice influence the reception and outcomes of confrontation?
- What practical recommendations can be drawn from these findings for organizations aiming to implement effective anti-bias training?
