Skip to main content

Thank you for visiting nature.com. You are using a browser version with limited support for CSS. To obtain the best experience, we recommend you use a more up to date browser (or turn off compatibility mode in Internet Explorer). In the meantime, to ensure continued support, we are displaying the site without styles and JavaScript.

  • Review Article
  • Published:

Bridging individual-level and system-level approaches to advance psychology-based diversity initiatives

Nature Reviews Psychology (2025)Cite this article

Subjects

Abstract

For decades, researchers, leaders and policymakers have worked to develop and implement interventions to increase the organizational representation of historically under-represented and marginalized groups, such as women in STEM and Black students attending prestigious universities. Despite substantial investments of time and resources, progress has stalled — and, worryingly, these efforts are facing growing backlash. In this Review, we examine diversity initiatives and policies grounded in psychological theory, particularly social cognition and person perception. We begin by outlining common organizational diversity strategies, identifying their psychological foundations and assessing their effectiveness. Although these approaches address an essential dimension of under-representation, they have limited effectiveness when applied alone because they primarily target individuals and intrapersonal processes (for example, stereotypes, prejudice and discrimination) while leaving systems that perpetuate inequality intact. We then consider adjacent literatures of choice architecture and judgement and decision-making, which offer complementary tools for advancing diversity by addressing both the systems in which people operate and the processes that shape individual behaviour. When combined with psychologically informed initiatives, these approaches offer a promising and sustainable path towards meaningful progress in organizational diversity.

Access through your institution
Buy or subscribe

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution

Access options

Access through your institution

Buy this article

  • Purchase on SpringerLink
  • Instant access to full article PDF
Buy now

Prices may be subject to local taxes which are calculated during checkout

Fig. 1: A behavioural design approach to organizational diversity.
Fig. 2: Case study.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  1. Frith, C. D. Social cognition. Philos. Trans. R. Soc. Lond. B Biol. Sci. 363, 2033–2039 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  2. Fiske, S. T. & Macrae C. N. (eds.) The SAGE Handbook of Social Cognition (SAGE, 2012).

  3. Neuberg, S. L. & Sng, O. A life history theory of social perception: stereotyping at the intersections of age, sex, ecology (and race). Soc. Cogn. 31, 696–711 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  4. Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 23 (eds. Fiske, S. T. & Neuberg, S. L.) 1–74 (Elsevier, 1990).

  5. Brewer, M. B. in Advances in Social Cognition Vol. I (eds. Wyer, R. S. Jr & Srull, T. K.) 1–36 (Psychology Press, 2014).

  6. Kalev, A., Dobbin, F. & Kelly, E. Best practices or best guesses? Assessing the efficacy of corporate affirmative action and diversity policies. Am. Sociol. Rev. 71, 589–617 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  7. Paluck, E. L., Porat, R., Clark, C. S. & Green, D. P. Prejudice reduction: progress and challenges. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 72, 533–560 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  8. Stephens, N. M., Rivera, L. A. & Townsend, S. S. M. The cycle of workplace bias and how to interrupt it. Res. Organ. Behav. 40, 100137 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  9. Arslan, C., Chang, E. H., Chilazi, S., Bohnet, I. & Hauser, O. P. Behaviorally designed training leads to more diverse hiring. Science 387, 364–366 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  10. Bezrukova, K., Spell, C. S., Perry, J. L. & Jehn, K. A. A meta-analytical integration of over 40 years of research on diversity training evaluation. Psychol. Bull. 142, 1227–1274 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  11. Allport, G. W. The Nature of Prejudice (Addison-Wesley, 1954).

  12. Bodenhausen, G. V., Kang, S. K. & Peery, D. in The SAGE Handbook of Social Cognition (eds. Fiske, S. T. & Macrae, C. N.) 311–329 (Sage, 2012).

  13. Fiske, S. T., Cuddy, A. J. C., Glick, P. & Xu, J. A model of (often mixed) stereotype content: competence and warmth respectively follow from perceived status and competition. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 878–902 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  14. Nicolas, G., Bai, X. & Fiske, S. T. A spontaneous stereotype content model: taxonomy, properties, and prediction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 123, 1243–1263 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  15. Fiske, S. T. Stereotype content: warmth and competence endure. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 27, 67–73 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  16. Cuddy, A. J. C., Fiske, S. T. & Glick, P. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 40 (ed. Zanna, M. P.) 61–149 (Elsevier, 2008).

  17. Greenwald, A. G. & Banaji, M. R. Implicit social cognition: attitudes, self-esteem, and stereotypes. Psychol. Rev. 102, 4–27 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  18. Greenwald, A. G., McGhee, D. E. & Schwartz, J. L. K. Measuring individual differences in implicit cognition: the implicit association test. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 1464–1480 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  19. Greenwald, A. G., Nosek, B. A. & Banaji, M. R. Understanding and using the implicit association test: I. An improved scoring algorithm. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 85, 197–216 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  20. Kurdi, B. et al. Relationship between the implicit association test and intergroup behavior: a meta-analysis. Am. Psychol. 74, 569–586 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  21. Nosek, B. A. et al. Pervasiveness and correlates of implicit attitudes and stereotypes. Eur. Rev. Soc. Psychol. 18, 36–88 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  22. Devine, P. G. Stereotypes and prejudice: their automatic and controlled components. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 56, 5–18 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  23. Plant, E. & Devine, P. Internal and external motivation to respond without prejudice. J. Personality Soc. Psychol. 75, 811–832 (1998).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  24. Dovidio, J. F., Kawakami, K. & Gaertner, S. L. Implicit and explicit prejudice and interracial interaction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 82, 62–68 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  25. Monteith, M. J. Self-regulation of prejudiced responses: implications for progress in prejudice-reduction efforts. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 65, 469–485 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  26. Devine, P. G., Monteith, M. J., Zuwerink, J. R. & Elliot, A. J. Prejudice with and without compunction. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 60, 817–830 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  27. Smith, E. R. & Zárate, M. A. Exemplar-based model of social judgment. Psychol. Rev. 99, 3–21 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  28. Linville, P. W. The complexity–extremity effect and age-based stereotyping. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 42, 193–211 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  29. Linville, P. W. & Fischer, G. W. Exemplar and abstraction models of perceived group variability and stereotypicality. Soc. Cogn. 11, 92–125 (1993).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  30. Olson, M. A. & Fazio, R. H. Reducing automatically activated racial prejudice through implicit evaluative conditioning. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 32, 421–433 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  31. Devine, P. G. & Monteith, M. J. in Dual-Process Theories in Social Psychology (eds. Chaiken, S. & Trope, Y.) 339–360 (Guilford, 1999).

  32. Greenwald, A. G. et al. A unified theory of implicit attitudes, stereotypes, self-esteem, and self-concept. Psychological Rev. 109, 3–25 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  33. Festinger, L. A Theory of Cognitive Dissonance (Stanford Univ. Press, 1957).

  34. Heider, F. Attitudes and cognitive organization. J. Psychol. 21, 107–112 (1946).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  35. Kunda, Z. & Spencer, S. J. When do stereotypes come to mind and when do they color judgment? A goal-based theoretical framework for stereotype activation and application. Psychol. Bull. 129, 522–544 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  36. Dovidio, J. F., Gaertner, S. L. & Validzic, A. Intergroup bias: status, differentiation, and a common in-group identity. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 75, 109–120 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  37. Tajfel, H. & Turner, J. C. in The Social Psychology of Intergroup Relations (eds. Austin, W. G. & Worchel, S.) 33–47 (Brooks/Cole, 1979).

  38. Turner, J. C., Hogg, M. A., Oakes, P. J., Reicher, S. D. & Wetherell, M. S. Rediscovering the Social Group: A Self-Categorization Theory (Basil Blackwell, 1987).

  39. Turner, J. C., Oakes, P. J., Haslam, S. A. & McGarty, C. Self and collective: cognition and social context. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 20, 454–463 (1994).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  40. Hogg, M. A. & Terry, D. J. Social identity and self-categorization processes in organizational contexts. Acad. Manag. Rev. 25, 121 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  41. Galinsky, A. D. & Moskowitz, G. B. Perspective-taking: decreasing stereotype expression, stereotype accessibility, and in-group favoritism. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 78, 708–724 (2000).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  42. Todd, A. R., Bodenhausen, G. V., Richeson, J. A. & Galinsky, A. D. Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 100, 1027–1042 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  43. Todd, A. R., Galinsky, A. D. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Perspective taking undermines stereotype maintenance processes: evidence from social memory, behavior explanation, and information solicitation. Soc. Cogn. 30, 94–108 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  44. Berthold, A., Leicht, C., Methner, N. & Gaum, P. Seeing the world with the eyes of the outgroup—the impact of perspective taking on the prototypicality of the ingroup relative to the outgroup. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 49, 1034–1041 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  45. Pettigrew, T. F. Intergroup contact theory. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 49, 65–85 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  46. Dovidio, J. F., Love, A., Schellhaas, F. M. H. & Hewstone, M. Reducing intergroup bias through intergroup contact: twenty years of progress and future directions. Group. Process. Intergroup Relat. 20, 606–620 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  47. Cocco, V. M., Vezzali, L., Stathi, S., Di Bernardo, G. A. & Dovidio, J. F. Mobilizing or sedative effects? A narrative review of the association between intergroup contact and collective action among advantaged and disadvantaged groups. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 28, 119–180 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  48. Brown, R. & Hewstone, M. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 37 (ed. Zanna, M. P.) 255–343 (Elsevier, 2005).

  49. Gaertner, S. L. & Dovidio, J. F. Reducing Intergroup Bias: The Common Ingroup Identity Model (Psychology Press, 2000).

  50. Paluck, E. L., Green, S. A. & Green, D. P. The contact hypothesis re-evaluated. Behav. Public. Policy 3, 129–158 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  51. Gurin, P., Nagda, B. A. & Zuniga, X. Dialogue Across Difference: Practice, Theory, and Research on Intergroup Dialogue (Russell Sage Foundation, 2013).

  52. Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. A Theory of Goal Setting & Task Performance (Prentice-Hall, 1990).

  53. Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. Building a practically useful theory of goal setting and task motivation: a 35-year odyssey. Am. Psychol. 57, 705–717 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  54. Locke, E. A. & Latham, G. P. Goal Setting: A Motivational Technique That Works! (Prentice-Hall, 1984).

  55. Wood, R. E., Mento, A. J. & Locke, E. A. Task complexity as a moderator of goal effects: a meta-analysis. J. Appl. Psychol. 72, 416–425 (1987).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  56. Ajzen, I. The theory of planned behavior. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 50, 179–211 (1991).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  57. Gollwitzer, P. M. & Sheeran, P. Implementation intentions and goal achievement: a meta‐analysis of effects and processes. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 69–119 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  58. Gollwitzer, P. M. Implementation intentions: strong effects of simple plans. Am. Psychol. 54, 493–503 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  59. Fishbein, M. & Ajzen, I. Predicting and Changing Behavior: The Reasoned Action Approach (Psychology Press, 2010).

  60. Bandura, A. Self-efficacy mechanism in human agency. Am. Psychol. 37, 122 (1982).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  61. Wood, R. & Bandura, A. Social cognitive theory of organizational management. Acad. Manage. Rev. 14, 361 (1989).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  62. Gist, M. E. & Mitchell, T. R. Self-efficacy: a theoretical analysis of its determinants and malleability. Acad. Manage. Rev. 17, 183 (1992).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  63. Locke, E. A., Frederick, E., Lee, C. & Bobko, P. Effect of self-efficacy, goals, and task strategies on task performance. J. Appl. Psychol. 69, 241–251 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  64. Festinger, L. Cognitive Dissonance. Sci. Am. 207, 93–106 (1962).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  65. Caza, B. B., Vough, H. & Puranik, H. Identity work in organizations and occupations: definitions, theories, and pathways forward. J. Organ. Behav. 39, 889–910 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  66. Ellemers, N., Spears, R. & Doosje, B. Self and social identity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 53, 161–186 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  67. Ellemers, N. & Haslam, S. A. in Handbook of Theories of Social Psychology (eds. van Lange, P. A. M., Kruglanski, A. & Higgins, E. T.) 379–398 (SAGE, 2012).

  68. Steele, C. M., Spencer, S. J. & Aronson, J. Contending with group image: the psychology of stereotype and social identity threat. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 34, 379–440 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  69. Cohen, G. L. & Garcia, J. Identity, belonging, and achievement: a model, interventions, implications. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 17, 365–369 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  70. Purdie-Vaughns, V., Steele, C. M., Davies, P. G., Ditlmann, R. & Crosby, J. R. Social identity contingencies: how diversity cues signal threat or safety for African Americans in mainstream institutions. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 94, 615–630 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  71. Cheryan, S., Plaut, V. C., Davies, P. G. & Steele, C. M. Ambient belonging: how stereotypical cues impact gender participation in computer science. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 97, 1045–1060 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  72. Good, C., Rattan, A. & Dweck, C. S. Why do women opt out? Sense of belonging and women’s representation in mathematics. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 102, 700–717 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  73. Walton, G. M. & Cohen, G. L. A question of belonging: race, social fit, and achievement. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 92, 82–96 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  74. Baumeister, R. F. & Leary, M. R. The need to belong: desire for interpersonal attachments as a fundamental human motivation. Psychol. Bull. 117, 497–529 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  75. Martens, A., Johns, M., Greenberg, J. & Schimel, J. Combating stereotype threat: the effect of self-affirmation on women’s intellectual performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 236–243 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  76. Steele, C. M. & Aronson, J. Stereotype threat and the intellectual test performance of African Americans. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 69, 797–811 (1995).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  77. Inzlicht, M. & Kang, S. K. Stereotype threat spillover: how coping with threats to social identity affects aggression, eating, decision making, and attention. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 99, 467–481 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  78. Napp, C. & Breda, T. The stereotype that girls lack talent: a worldwide investigation. Sci. Adv. 8, eabm3689 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  79. Wood, W. & Eagly, A. H. A cross-cultural analysis of the behavior of women and men: implications for the origins of sex differences. Psychol. Bull. 128, 699–727 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  80. Eagly, A. H. & Steffen, V. J. Gender stereotypes stem from the distribution of women and men into social roles. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 46, 735–754 (1984).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  81. Hirsh, J. B. & Kang, S. K. Mechanisms of identity conflict: uncertainty, anxiety, and the behavioral inhibition system. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 20, 223–244 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  82. Kang, S. K. & Bodenhausen, G. V. Multiple identities in social perception and interaction: challenges and opportunities. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 66, 547–574 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  83. Heilman, M. E. Sex bias in work settings: the lack of fit model. Res. Organ. Behav. 5, 269–298 (1983).

    Google Scholar 

  84. Eagly, A. H. & Karau, S. J. Role congruity theory of prejudice toward female leaders. Psychol. Rev. 109, 573–598 (2002).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  85. Stephens, N. M., Townsend, S. S. M. & Dittmann, A. G. Social-class disparities in higher education and professional workplaces: the role of cultural mismatch. Curr. Dir. Psychol. Sci. 28, 67–73 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  86. Sandberg, S. Lean In: Women, Work, and the Will to Lead (Random House, 2013).

  87. Chrobot-Mason, D., Hoobler, J. & Burno, J. Lean in versus the literature: an evidence-based examination. Acad. Manag. Perspect. 33, 110–130 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  88. Cohen, G. L. & Sherman, D. K. The psychology of change: self-affirmation and social psychological intervention. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 65, 333–371 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  89. Sherman, D. K. & Cohen, G. L. The psychology of self‐defense: self‐affirmation theory. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 38, 183–242 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  90. Steele, C. M. The psychology of self-affirmation: sustaining the integrity of the self. Adv. Exp. Soc. Psych. 21, 261–302 (1988).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  91. Trope, Y. & Neter, E. Reconciling competing motives in self-evaluation: the role of self-control in feedback seeking. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 66, 646–657 (1994).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  92. Spencer, S. J., Steele, C. M. & Quinn, D. M. Stereotype threat and women’s math performance. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 35, 4–28 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  93. Bandura, A. Social Learning Theory (Prentice Hall, 1977).

  94. Lockwood, P. & Kunda, Z. Superstars and me: predicting the impact of role models on the self. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 73, 91–103 (1997).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  95. Lockwood, P. “Someone like me can be successful”: do college students need same-gender role models? Psychol. Women Q. 30, 36–46 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  96. Cialdini, R. B., Kallgren, C. A. & Reno, R. R. in Advances in Experimental Social Psychology Vol. 24 (ed. Zanna, M. P.) 201–234 (Academic, 1991).

  97. Sherif, M. The Psychology of Social Norms (Harper, 1936).

  98. Bicchieri, C. The Grammar of Society: The Nature and Dynamics of Social Norms 1–260 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2005).

  99. Cialdini, R. B. & Goldstein, N. J. Social influence: compliance and conformity. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 55, 591–621 (2004).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  100. Cialdini, R. B., Reno, R. R. & Kallgren, C. A. A focus theory of normative conduct: recycling the concept of norms to reduce littering in public places. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 58, 1015–1026 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  101. O’Reilly, C. A. & Chatman, J. A. Culture as social control: corporations, cults, and commitment. Res. Organ. Behav. 18, 157–200 (1996).

    Google Scholar 

  102. Koenig, A. M. & Eagly, A. H. Evidence for the social role theory of stereotype content: observations of groups’ roles shape stereotypes. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 107, 371–392 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  103. Devine, P. G. & Ash, T. L. Diversity training goals, limitations, and promise: a review of the multidisciplinary literature. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 77, 403–429 (2021).

    Google Scholar 

  104. FitzGerald, C., Martin, A., Berner, D. & Hurst, S. Interventions designed to reduce implicit prejudices and implicit stereotypes in real world contexts: a systematic review. BMC Psychol. 7, 29 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  105. Kalinoski, Z. T. et al. A meta-analytic evaluation of diversity training outcomes: diversity training. J. Organ. Behav. 34, 1076–1104 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  106. Nishii, L. H., Khattab, J., Shemla, M. & Paluch, R. M. A multi-level process model for understanding diversity practice effectiveness. Acad. Manag. Ann. 12, 37–82 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  107. Lai, C. K. et al. Reducing implicit racial preferences: I. A comparative investigation of 17 interventions. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 143, 1765–1785 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  108. Costa, E. Examining the effectiveness of interventions to reduce discriminatory behavior at work: an attitude dimension consistency perspective. J. Appl. Psychol. https://doi.org/10.1037/apl0001215 (2024).

  109. Chang, E. H. et al. The mixed effects of online diversity training. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 116, 7778–7783 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  110. Lai, C. K. et al. Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time. J. Exp. Psychol. Gen. 145, 1001–1016 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  111. Homan, A. C., Buengeler, C., Eckhoff, R. A., van Ginkel, W. P. & Voelpel, S. C. The interplay of diversity training and diversity beliefs on team creativity in nationality diverse teams. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 1456–1467 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  112. Leslie, L. M. Diversity initiative effectiveness: a typological theory of unintended consequences. Acad. Manage. Rev. 44, 538–563 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  113. Caleo, S. & Heilman, M. E. What could go wrong? Some unintended consequences of gender bias interventions. Arch. Sci. Psychol. 7, 71–80 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  114. Dover, T. L., Kaiser, C. R. & Major, B. Mixed signals: the unintended effects of diversity initiatives. Soc. Issues Policy Rev. 14, 152–181 (2020).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  115. Castilla, E. J. & Benard, S. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm. Sci. Q. 55, 543–676 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  116. Kaiser, C. R. et al. Presumed fair: ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 104, 504–519 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  117. Duguid, M. M. & Thomas-Hunt, M. C. Condoning stereotyping? How awareness of stereotyping prevalence impacts expression of stereotypes. J. Appl. Psychol. 100, 343–359 (2015).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  118. Dover, T. L., Major, B. & Kaiser, C. R. Members of high-status groups are threatened by pro-diversity organizational messages. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 61, 1–6 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  119. Dobbin, F., Schrage, D. & Kalev, A. Rage against the iron cage: the varied effects of bureaucratic personnel reforms on diversity. Am. Sociol. Rev. 80, 1014–1044 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  120. Ku, G., Wang, C. S. & Galinsky, A. D. The promise and perversity of perspective-taking in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 35, 79–102 (2015).

    Google Scholar 

  121. Longmire, N. H. & Harrison, D. A. Seeing their side versus feeling their pain: differential consequences of perspective-taking and empathy at work. J. Appl. Psychol. 103, 894–915 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  122. Lemmer, G. & Wagner, U. Can we really reduce ethnic prejudice outside the lab? A meta-analysis of direct and indirect contact interventions: meta-analysis of contact interventions. Eur. J. Soc. Psychol. 45, 152–168 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  123. Saguy, T., Tausch, N., Dovidio, J. F. & Pratto, F. The irony of harmony: intergroup contact can produce false expectations for equality. Psychol. Sci. 20, 114–121 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  124. Mendoza, S. A., Gollwitzer, P. M. & Amodio, D. M. Reducing the expression of implicit stereotypes: reflexive control through implementation intentions. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 36, 512–523 (2010).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  125. Stewart, B. D. & Payne, B. K. Bringing automatic stereotyping under control: implementation intentions as efficient means of thought control. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. 34, 1332–1345 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  126. Mendoza, S., Shorinko, J., Martin, S. & Martone, L. The effects of perspective taking implementing intentions on employee evaluations and hostile sexism. Pers. Assess. Decis. 5, 7 (2019).

    Google Scholar 

  127. Holland, R. W., Aarts, H. & Langendam, D. Breaking and creating habits on the working floor: a field-experiment on the power of implementation intentions. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 42, 776–783 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  128. Milkman, K. L., Beshears, J., Choi, J. J., Laibson, D. & Madrian, B. C. Using implementation intentions prompts to enhance influenza vaccination rates. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 108, 10415–10420 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  129. Smith, B. D. & Silk, K. Cultural competence clinic: an online, interactive, simulation for working effectively with Arab American Muslim patients. Acad. Psychiatry 35, 312–316 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  130. Kuntz, J. C. & Searle, F. Does bystander intervention training work? When employee intentions and organisational barriers collide. J. Interpers. Violence 38, 2934–2956 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  131. Jennings, L., Zhao, K., Faulkner, N. & Smith, L. Mapping bystander intervention to workplace inclusion: a scoping review. Hum. Resour. Manag. Rev. 34, 101017 (2024).

    Google Scholar 

  132. Haynes-Baratz, M. C., Metinyurt, T., Li, Y. L., Gonzales, J. & Bond, M. A. Bystander training for faculty: a promising approach to tackling microaggressions in the academy. N. Ideas Psychol. 63, 100882 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  133. Coker, A. L. et al. RCT testing bystander effectiveness to reduce violence. Am. J. Prev. Med. 52, 566–578 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  134. Fenwick, K. M. et al. Challenges to addressing patient-perpetrated sexual harassment in veterans affairs healthcare settings. J. Gen. Intern. Med. 36, 2332–2338 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  135. Mobasseri, S., Srivastava, S. B. & Kray, L. J. A brief social-belonging intervention in the workplace: evidence from a field experiment. Acad. Manag. Discov. 7, 85–103 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  136. Martin, A. E. & Phillips, K. W. What “blindness” to gender differences helps women see and do: implications for confidence, agency, and action in male-dominated environments. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 142, 28–44 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  137. Burnette, J. L., Pollack, J. M. & Hoyt, C. L. Individual differences in implicit theories of leadership ability and self-efficacy: predicting responses to stereotype threat. J. Lead. Stud. 3, 46–56 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  138. Murphy, M. C., Steele, C. M. & Gross, J. J. Signaling threat: how situational cues affect women in math, science, and engineering settings. Psychol. Sci. 18, 879–885 (2007).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  139. Hoyt, C. L. & Murphy, S. E. Managing to clear the air: stereotype threat, women, and leadership. Leadersh. Q. 27, 387–399 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  140. Kinias, Z. & Sim, J. Facilitating women’s success in business: interrupting the process of stereotype threat through affirmation of personal values. J. Appl. Psychol. 101, 1585–1597 (2016).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  141. Cislaghi, B. et al. Changing social norms: the importance of “organized diffusion” for scaling up community health promotion and women empowerment interventions. Prev. Sci. 20, 936–946 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  142. Rudman, L. A. & Glick, P. Prescriptive gender stereotypes and backlash toward agentic women. J. Soc. Issues 57, 743–762 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  143. Rudman, L. A. & Phelan, J. E. Backlash effects for disconfirming gender stereotypes in organizations. Res. Organ. Behav. 28, 61–79 (2008).

    Google Scholar 

  144. Heilman, M. E. Description and prescription: how gender stereotypes prevent women’s ascent up the organizational ladder. J. Soc. Issues 57, 657–674 (2001).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  145. He, J. C. & Kang, S. K. Covering in cover letters: gender and self-presentation in job applications. Acad. Manage. J. 64, 1097–1126 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  146. Kim, J. Y., Fitzsimons, G. M. & Kay, A. C. Lean in messages increase attributions of women’s responsibility for gender inequality. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 974–1001 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  147. Dennehy, T. C. & Dasgupta, N. Female peer mentors early in college increase women’s positive academic experiences and retention in engineering. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 114, 5964–5969 (2017).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  148. James, E. H. Race-related differences in promotions and support: underlying effects of human and social capital. Organ. Sci. 11, 493–508 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  149. Ragins, B. R. & Cornwell, J. M. Pink triangles: antecedents and consequences of perceived workplace discrimination against gay and lesbian employees. J. Appl. Psychol. 86, 1244–1261 (2001).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  150. Welbourne, T. M., Rolf, S. & Schlachter, S. The case for employee resource groups: a review and social identity theory-based research agenda. Pers. Rev. 46, 1816–1834 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  151. Forscher, P. S. et al. A meta-analysis of procedures to change implicit measures. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 117, 522–559 (2019).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  152. Inzlicht, M., Schmeichel, B. J. & Macrae, C. N. Why self-control seems (but may not be) limited. Trends Cogn. Sci. 18, 127–133 (2014).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  153. Asch, S. Opinions and social pressure. Nature 176, 1009–1011 (1955).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  154. Asch, S. Studies of independence and conformity: I. A minority of one against a unanimous majority. Psychol. Monogr. Gen. Appl. 70, 1–70 (1956).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  155. Bond, R. & Smith, P. B. Culture and conformity: a meta-analysis of studies using Asch’s (1952b, 1956) line judgment task. Psychol. Bull. 119, 111–137 (1996).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  156. Acker, J. Hierarchies, jobs, bodies: a theory of gendered organizations. Gend. Soc. 4, 139–158 (1990).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  157. Cheryan, S. & Markus, H. R. Masculine defaults: identifying and mitigating hidden cultural biases. Psychol. Rev. 127, 1022–1052 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  158. Acker, J. Inequality regimes. Gend. Soc. 20, 441–464 (2006).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  159. Hsu, N., Badura, K. L., Newman, D. A. & Speach, M. E. P. Gender, “masculinity,” and “femininity”: a meta-analytic review of gender differences in agency and communion. Psychol. Bull. 147, 987–1011 (2021).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  160. Diekman, A. B. & Schmader, T. in The Oxford Handbook of Social Cognition (eds. Carlston, D. E., Hugenberg, K. & Johnson, K. L.) 471–501 (Oxford Univ. Press, 2024).

  161. Prentice, D. A. & Carranza, E. What women should be, shouldn’t be, are allowed to be, and don’t have to be: the contents of prescriptive gender stereotypes. Psychol. Women Q. 26, 269–281 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  162. Paluck, E. L. & Green, D. P. Prejudice reduction: what works? A review and assessment of research and practice. Annu. Rev. Psychol. 60, 339–367 (2009).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  163. He, J. C. & Kang, S. K. Moving from i-frame to s-frame focus in equity, diversity, and inclusion research, practice, and policy. Behav. Brain Sci. 46, e159 (2023).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  164. Leslie, L. M., Mayer, D. M. & Kravitz, D. A. The stigma of affirmative action: a stereotyping-based theory and meta-analytic test of the consequences for performance. Acad. Manage. J. 57, 964–989 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  165. Thaler, R. H. & Sunstein, C. R. Nudge: Improving Decisions About Health, Wealth, and Happiness (Yale Univ. Press, 2008).

  166. Dai, H. et al. Behavioural nudges increase COVID-19 vaccinations. Nature 597, 404–409 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  167. Milkman, K. L. et al. A 680,000-person megastudy of nudges to encourage vaccination in pharmacies. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2115126119 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  168. Beshears, J., Dai, H., Milkman, K. L. & Benartzi, S. Using fresh starts to nudge increased retirement savings. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 167, 72–87 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  169. Hallsworth, M., List, J. A., Metcalfe, R. D. & Vlaev, I. The behavioralist as tax collector: using natural field experiments to enhance tax compliance. J. Public. Econ. 148, 14–31 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  170. Allcott, H. & Rogers, T. The short-run and long-run effects of behavioral interventions: experimental evidence from energy conservation. Am. Econ. Rev. 104, 3003–3037 (2014).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  171. Jachimowicz, J. M., Hauser, O. P., O’Brien, J. D., Sherman, E. & Galinsky, A. D. The critical role of second-order normative beliefs in predicting energy conservation. Nat. Hum. Behav. 2, 757–764 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  172. Balafoutas, L. & Sutter, M. Affirmative action policies promote women and do not harm efficiency in the laboratory. Science 335, 579–582 (2012).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  173. Leibbrandt, A., Wang, L. C. & Foo, C. Gender quotas, competitions, and peer review: experimental evidence on the backlash against women. Manage. Sci. 64, 3501–3516 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  174. Cialdini, R. B. & Trost, M. R. in The Handbook of Social Psychology (eds. Gilbert, D. T., Fiske, S. T. & Lindzey, G.) 151–192 (McGraw-Hill, 1998).

  175. Niederle, M. & Vesterlund, L. Do women shy away from competition? Do men compete too much? Q. J. Econ. 122, 1067–1101 (2007).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  176. Niederle, M. & Vesterlund, L. Gender and competition. Annu. Rev. Econom. 3, 601–630 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  177. Rudman, L. A., Johnson, K., Julian, S., Phillips, E. & Zehren, K. Self-promotion as a risk factor for women: the costs and benefits of counterstereotypical impression management. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 74, 629–645 (1998).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  178. Jachimowicz, J. M., Duncan, S., Weber, E. U. & Johnson, E. J. When and why defaults influence decisions: a meta-analysis of default effects. Behav. Public. Policy 3, 159–186 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  179. McKenzie, C. R. M., Liersch, M. J. & Finkelstein, S. R. Recommendations implicit in policy defaults. Psychol. Sci. 17, 414–420 (2006).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  180. Johnson, E. J., Bellman, S. & Lohse, G. L. Defaults, framing and privacy: why opting in-opting out. Mark. Lett. 13, 5–15 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  181. Johnson, E. J. & Goldstein, D. Do defaults save lives? Science 302, 1338–1339 (2003).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  182. He, J. C., Kang, S. K. & Lacetera, N. Opt-out choice framing attenuates gender differences in the decision to compete in the laboratory and in the field. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 118, e2108337118 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  183. Bazerman, M. H. & Moore, D. A. Judgment in Managerial Decision Making (Wiley, 2013).

  184. Bohnet, I., van Geen, A. & Bazerman, M. When performance trumps gender bias: joint vs. separate evaluation. Manage. Sci. 62, 1225–1234 (2016).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  185. Chang, E. H., Kirgios, E. L., Rai, A. & Milkman, K. L. The isolated choice effect and its implications for gender diversity in organizations. Manage. Sci. 66, 2291–2799 (2020).

    Google Scholar 

  186. Rivera, L. A. & Tilcsik, A. Scaling down inequality: rating scales, gender bias, and the architecture of evaluation. Am. Sociol. Rev. 84, 248–274 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  187. Kutcher, E. J. & Bragger, J. D. Selection interviews of overweight job applicants: can structure reduce the bias? J. Appl. Soc. Psychol. 34, 1993–2022 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  188. Kivetz, R. & Simonson, I. Self-control for the righteous: toward a theory of precommitment to indulgence. J. Consum. Res. 29, 199–217 (2002).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  189. Milkman, K. L., Rogers, T. & Bazerman, M. H. Harnessing our inner angels and demons: what we have learned about want/should conflicts and how that knowledge can help us reduce short-sighted decision making. Perspect. Psychol. Sci. 3, 324–338 (2008).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  190. Bryan, G., Karlan, D. & Nelson, S. Commitment devices. Annu. Rev. Econom. 2, 671–698 (2010).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  191. Uhlmann, E. L. & Cohen, G. L. Constructed criteria: redefining merit to justify discrimination. Psychol. Sci. 16, 474–480 (2005).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  192. Chang, L. W. & Cikara, M. Social decoys: leveraging choice architecture to alter social preferences. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 206–223 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  193. He, J. C. & Kang, S. K. De-biasing job ads by replacing masculine language increases gender diversity of applicant pools. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2409854122 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  194. Coffman, K. B., Collis, M. R. & Kulkarni, L. Whether to apply. Manage. Sci. 70, 4649–4669 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  195. Bertrand, M. & Mullainathan, S. Are Emily and Greg more employable than Lakisha and Jamal? A field experiment on labor market discrimination. Am. Econ. Rev. 94, 991–1013 (2004).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  196. Goldin, C. & Rouse, C. Orchestrating impartiality: the impact of “blind” auditions on female musicians. Am. Econ. Rev. 90, 715–741 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  197. Behaghel, L., Crépon, B. & Barbanchon, T. L. Do anonymous resumes make the field more even? Evidence from a randomized field experiment. https://api.semanticscholar.org/CorpusID:27320451 (2012).

  198. Chang, L. W. & Chang, E. H. On the limits of anonymization for promoting diversity in organizations. Pers. Soc. Psychol. Bull. https://doi.org/10.1177/01461672241304593 (2025).

  199. Behaghel, L., Crépon, B. & Le Barbanchon, T. Unintended effects of anonymous résumés. Am. Econ. J. Appl. Econ. 7, 1–27 (2015).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  200. Roy, E. et al. A contest study to reduce attractiveness-based discrimination in social judgment. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 128, 508–535 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  201. Goldstein, N. J., Cialdini, R. B. & Griskevicius, V. A room with a viewpoint: using social norms to motivate environmental conservation in hotels. J. Consum. Res. 35, 472–482 (2008).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  202. Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R. & Brauer, M. Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 889–897 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  203. Avilova, T. & Goldin, C. What can UWE do for economics? AEA Pap. Proc. 108, 186–190 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  204. Cervantez, J. A. & Milkman, K. L. Can nudges be leveraged to enhance diversity in organizations? A systematic review. Curr. Opin. Psychol. 60, 101874 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  205. Axt, J. & To, J. How can debiasing research aid efforts to reduce discrimination? Pers. Soc. Psychol. Rev. 29, 81–105 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  206. Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J. J. & Brosch, T. The effectiveness of nudging: a meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 119, e2107346118 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  207. Szaszi, B., Palinkas, A., Palfi, B., Szollosi, A. & Aczel, B. A systematic scoping review of the choice architecture movement: toward understanding when and why nudges work. J. Behav. Decis. Mak. 31, 355–366 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  208. Milkman, K. L. et al. Megastudies improve the impact of applied behavioural science. Nature 600, 478–483 (2021).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

  209. DellaVigna, S. & Linos, E. RCTs to scale: comprehensive evidence from two nudge units. Econometrica 90, 81–116 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  210. Hummel, D. & Maedche, A. How effective is nudging? a quantitative review on the effect sizes and limits of empirical nudging studies. J. Behav. Exp. Econ. 80, 47–58 (2019).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  211. Chater, N. & Loewenstein, G. The i-frame and the s-frame: how focusing on individual-level solutions has led behavioral public policy astray. Behav. Brain Sci. 46, 1–60 (2022).

    Google Scholar 

  212. Krijnen, J. M. T., Tannenbaum, D. & Fox, C. R. Choice architecture 2.0: behavioral policy as an implicit social interaction. Behav. Sci. Policy 3, 1–18 (2017).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  213. Jachimowicz, J. M. Embracing field studies as a tool for learning. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 1, 249–250 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  214. Ely, R. J. & Meyerson, D. E. Advancing gender equity in organizations: the challenge and importance of maintaining a gender narrative. Organization 7, 589–608 (2000).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  215. IJzerman, H. et al. Use caution when applying behavioural science to policy. Nat. Hum. Behav. 4, 1092–1094 (2020).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  216. List, J. A. Optimally generate policy-based evidence before scaling. Nature 626, 491–499 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  217. Dinner, I., Johnson, E. J., Goldstein, D. G. & Liu, K. Partitioning default effects: why people choose not to choose. J. Exp. Psychol. Appl. 17, 332–341 (2011).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  218. Read, D., Loewenstein, G. & Rabin, M. Choice bracketing. J. Risk Uncertain. 19, 171–197 (1999).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  219. Bordalo, P., Gennaioli, N. & Shleifer, A. Salience theory of choice under risk. Q. J. Econ. 127, 1243–1285 (2012).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  220. Fath, S., Larrick, R. P. & Soll, J. B. Blinding curiosity: exploring preferences for “blinding” one’s own judgment. Organ. Behav. Hum. Decis. Process. 170, 104135 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  221. Tversky, A. & Kahneman, D. Judgment under uncertainty: heuristics and biases. Science 185, 1124–1131 (1974).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  222. Chapman, G. B. & Johnson, E. J. in Heuristics and Biases 120–138 (Cambridge Univ. Press, 2002).

  223. Berdahl, J. L., Cooper, M., Glick, P., Livingston, R. W. & Williams, J. C. Work as a masculinity contest. J. Soc. Issues 74, 422–448 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  224. Hall, W., Schmader, T., Inness, M. & Croft, E. Climate change: an increase in norms for inclusion predicts greater fit and commitment for women in STEM. Group. Process. Intergroup Relat. 25, 1781–1796 (2022).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  225. Cheryan, S., Lombard, E. J., Hailu, F., Pham, L. N. H. & Weltzien, K. Global patterns of gender disparities in STEM and explanations for their persistence. Nat. Rev. Psychol. 4, 6–19 (2024).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  226. Glick, P., Berdahl, J. L. & Alonso, N. M. Development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale: development and validation of the masculinity contest culture scale. J. Soc. Issues 74, 449–476 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  227. Vial, A. C., Muradoglu, M., Newman, G. E. & Cimpian, A. An emphasis on brilliance fosters masculinity-contest cultures. Psychol. Sci. 33, 595–612 (2022).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  228. Bian, L., Leslie, S. J., Murphy, M. C. & Cimpian, A. Messages about brilliance undermine women’s interest in educational and professional opportunities. J. Exp. Soc. Psychol. 76, 404–420 (2018).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  229. Dobbin, F., Kim, S. & Kalev, A. You can’t always get what you need: organizational determinants of diversity programs. Am. Sociol. Rev. 76, 386–411 (2011).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  230. Iyer, A. Understanding advantaged groups’ opposition to diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) policies: the role of perceived threat. Soc. Personal. Psychol. Compass https://doi.org/10.1111/spc3.12666 (2022).

  231. Nishii, L. H. The benefits of climate for inclusion for gender-diverse groups. AMJ 56, 1754–1774 (2013).

    Article  Google Scholar 

  232. Hall, W., Schmader, T., Aday, A., Inness, M. & Croft, E. Climate control: the relationship between social identity threat and cues to an identity-safe culture. J. Pers. Soc. Psychol. 115, 446–467 (2018).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  233. Hamedani, M. G., Markus, H. R., Hetey, R. C. & Eberhardt, J. L. We built this culture (so we can change it): seven principles for intentional culture change. Am. Psychol. 79, 384–402 (2024).

    Article  PubMed  Google Scholar 

  234. Cheryan, S. & Muragishi, G. A. Removing masculine defaults in the hiring process. Proc. Natl Acad. Sci. USA 122, e2501630122 (2025).

    Article  PubMed  PubMed Central  Google Scholar 

Download references

Acknowledgements

The authors thank the Institute for Gender and the Economy (GATE) and the Behavioral Economics in Action at Rotman (BEAR) research centres at the University of Toronto Rotman School of Management, as well as the Social Sciences and Humanities Research Council of Canada (SSHRC), for their support.

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

  1. Anderson School of Management, University of California, Los Angeles, Los Angeles, CA, USA

    Joyce C. He & Benjamin B. Keller

  2. Department of Management, University of Toronto Mississauga, Mississauga, Ontario, Canada

    Sonia K. Kang

Authors
  1. Joyce C. He
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  2. Benjamin B. Keller
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

  3. Sonia K. Kang
    View author publications

    Search author on:PubMed Google Scholar

Contributions

The authors contributed equally to all aspects of the article.

Corresponding author

Correspondence to Sonia K. Kang.

Ethics declarations

Competing interests

The authors declare no competing interests.

Peer review

Peer review information

Nature Reviews Psychology thanks Aneeta Rattan, Andrea Vial, and the other, anonymous, reviewer(s) for their contribution to the peer review of this work.

Additional information

Publisher’s note Springer Nature remains neutral with regard to jurisdictional claims in published maps and institutional affiliations.

Rights and permissions

Springer Nature or its licensor (e.g. a society or other partner) holds exclusive rights to this article under a publishing agreement with the author(s) or other rightsholder(s); author self-archiving of the accepted manuscript version of this article is solely governed by the terms of such publishing agreement and applicable law.

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Check for updates. Verify currency and authenticity via CrossMark

Cite this article

He, J.C., Keller, B.B. & Kang, S.K. Bridging individual-level and system-level approaches to advance psychology-based diversity initiatives. Nat Rev Psychol (2025). https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00493-3

Download citation

  • Accepted:

  • Published:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1038/s44159-025-00493-3

Search

Advanced search

Quick links

Nature Briefing

Sign up for the Nature Briefing newsletter — what matters in science, free to your inbox daily.

Get the most important science stories of the day, free in your inbox. Sign up for Nature Briefing