Skip to main content
NCBI home page
NIHPA Author Manuscripts logoLink to NIHPA Author Manuscripts
. Author manuscript; available in PMC: 2026 Jun 17.
Published in final edited form as: Simul Gaming. 2020 Dec 28;52(3):386–402. doi: 10.1177/1046878120983384

Decreasing Racial Bias Through A Facilitated Game and Workshop: The Case of Fair Play

Christine Maidl Pribbenow 1, Kyrie Eleison H Caldwell 1, Donald Dejon Dantzler 1, Percy Brown Jr 1, Molly Carnes 1
PMCID: PMC13271663  NIHMSID: NIHMS2173654  PMID: 42311509

Abstract

Introduction.

Fair Play is an avatar-based role-playing video game in which Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student at a research university, navigates implicit forms of racial bias to reach the win-state of earning his PhD and becoming a professor. Fair Play was designed to educate players on the existence of racial bias in science, technology, engineering, mathematics, and medicine (STEMM) fields in an experiential way and to encourage perspective-taking. Research has found that taking the perspective of another can induce empathy, which improves the empathizer’s attitudes towards individuals and groups. Paired with a facilitated workshop, Fair Play was also designed to teach bias concepts to increase participants’ bias literacy.

Intervention.

Research on workshops to reduce gender bias suggests that it increased awareness of personal bias, the motivation and self-efficacy to practice bias-reducing strategies, and a more welcoming department climate and the hiring of more women faculty three years after the intervention. Capitalizing on these findings, a 3-hour workshop was developed to reduce race-based bias against Black/African Americans in STEMM using Fair Play.

Conclusions.

The facilitation of the workshops and Fair Play requires particular competencies due to its topic (racial bias) and player’s skepticism about the reality of the bias incidents. Our data suggest that participants who identify as a person of color are more likely to believe that bias exists compared to White players, which can lead to a discussion about how the incidents in the game were designed and scripted. The facilitator also needs to be versed in a number of intentional design choices, such as Jamal not having voiceover and his success. Finally, this paper describes the Facilitator Game, which was developed as a complement to the game and allows a facilitator to jump to bias incidents quickly while debriefing and discussing the game to further participant learning.

Keywords: Serious games, social impact game, games for learning, professional development

Background

The disproportionate and low number of individuals from racial and ethnic minority groups in the fields of science, technology, engineering, mathematics and medicine (STEMM) continues to plague all levels of education in the United States and robs the nation of talented people in these fields. When asked about their experiences in postsecondary and graduate education settings, underrepresented minorities (URMs) describe being targets of bias and experiencing negative outcomes including discrimination, marginalization and isolation (Aguirre, 2006; Niemann, 1999; Pololi, Cooper & Carr, 2010; Reyes, 2005). Furthermore, individuals from underrepresented groups who leave the sciences often cite racism as a contributing factor in their decision to leave (Monforti & Michelson, 2008). The game Fair Play was developed to address some types of racism experienced by graduate students in academia today, specifically implicit bias.

Fair Play is an avatar-based role-playing video game in which the player is Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student at a large research university who must navigate implicit forms of racial bias in order to reach the win-state of earning his PhD and becoming a renowned professor. Fair Play was conceptualized and developed under the direction of Dr. Molly Carnes and in collaboration with game designers, coders, artists and content experts. The game was intended to be played by current faculty in postsecondary institutions to help address the low number of URMs in STEMM fields. Recent data show that Black, Latinx, and American Indian/Alaskan Native STEMM-related faculty positions remain disproportionately low at under 10%, with even less representation in fields such as physics and computer science (Fisher et al., 2019). Fair Play was designed to educate current faculty about implicit bias such that they would learn how to mitigate against it as a means to improve the retention and success of graduate students of color (Devine, 1989; Devine et al., 2012).

Fair Play falls squarely under the definition of a serious game where the “primary goal is learning and not entertainment” (Michael & Chen, 2005, p. 17). A number of design elements were incorporated to ensure that the learning goals were met by the player. First, Fair Play relies heavily on the technique of perspective-taking, or allowing the player to walk in the shoes of another person and take the perspective of someone else. Researchers who study perspective-taking often ask participants to read vignettes where bias occurs and/or are shown a picture of a member of a stereotyped group (e.g., a young Black man) and “imagine” themselves as this person in detail (Davis et al., 1996; Galinsky et al., 2005). This technique evokes an empathic response towards this individual that has been shown to generalize to the stereotyped group. Perspective-taking decreases anti-Black bias on multiple measures of implicit bias including the Implicit Association Test and non-verbal interactions between White participants and Black students and other behavioral indicators (Gehlbach et al., 2015; Todd & Bodenhausen, 2011; Williams, 2012). It follows and has been shown that players interacting with a virtual world via a Black avatar can produce similar effects as the players’ “self-presence” incorporates or extends to that avatar (Behm-Morawitz et al., 2016). Because the intended audience—STEMM faculty—are white, this design element allows the majority of players to experience being Black if only for a short time (van Loon et al., 2018; Herrera et al., 2018). In addition, Fair Play relies on a narrative for Jamal as he encounters other students and faculty on a campus during the first year of being a graduate student. Since the intended audience has experienced graduate school, this design choice encourages players’ experiences of immersion (Bedwell et al., 2012).

Fair Play was also designed to teach declarative knowledge—the actual names of the bias concepts, their definitions, and supporting literature, as a means to increase players’ bias literacy (Sevo & Chubin, 2008). Education on the existence of implicit bias and the specific types and definitions of bias concepts has been shown to be effective in reducing bias (Carnes et al., 2012; Devine et al., 2012). Early research during the development of the game indicated that it promotes bias literacy and that players were able to experience empathy when adopting Jamal’s perspective (Gutierrez et al., 2014; Kaatz et al., 2017). When asked to describe how participants felt while playing, they used the words invisible, alone, frustrated, and uncomfortable (Kaatz et al., 2017, p. 11). From these results, we theorized that playing Fair Play would engender empathy for the character and that the additional ability of being able to identify and name bias concepts—bias literacy—would reduce bias in the player.

The Fair Play Workshop

While the game was nearing completion, Dr. Carnes’ research group conducted a cluster randomized trial testing the impact of a workshop aimed at faculty in STEMM that approached implicit bias about gender as a remediable habit. They found that the breaking the bias habit approach increased awareness of personal bias, the motivation and self-efficacy to practice bias-reducing strategies, and a more welcoming department climate and the hiring of more women faculty three years after the intervention (Carnes et al., 2015; Devine et al., 2017). Capitalizing on these findings, Dr. Christine Pribbenow developed a 3-hour workshop that integrated Fair Play with the bias habit-reducing strategies from Carnes’ previous work to focus on reducing race-based bias against Black/African Americans in STEMM. This workshop has been conducted at national conferences and offered at a number of postsecondary institutions across the United States. To date, fifteen workshops have been conducted with ~960 faculty at thirteen different universities and six conferences.

The professional development that complements the current Fair Play game is based on the habit breaking model developed and tested by Dr. Molly Carnes (Carnes et al., 2015; Devine et al., 2017). In this model, there are three modules that make up the professional development:

  1. Education—research and evidence about implicit bias is described;

  2. Experience—participants experience what implicit bias looks and feels like through an experiential component; and

  3. Training—participants learn about strategies that address and decrease bias, as well as those that are ineffective.

This facilitated workshop takes approximately three hours to conduct, which allows for a short presentation at the beginning (education), playing Fair Play and reflecting on the role-playing (experience), and a final component to identify strategies that have been researched and shown to decrease bias (Figure 1).

Figure 1.

Figure 1.

Open in a new tab

The habit breaking model of professional development.

Facilitation Tools and Tips

Fair Play Game and Facilitator Guide

The current Resource Guide (see Appendix) describes Fair Play as the following:

Fair Play is a free, downloadable adventure and exploration game in which the player takes on the perspective of Jamal Davis, a Black graduate student on his way to becoming a renowned professor. Fair Play spans five chapters during which players navigate through the challenges of graduate school including finding an advisor, writing publications, and much more. On the journey, players experience situations that exemplify different types of racial biases, both directly (from interpersonal interactions) and indirectly (from environmental factors). Based on environmental and conversational interactions, the player will decide how to respond to each bias incident as it occurs. Players become more familiar with forms of bias that are experienced within the game as the game prompts players to correctly identify the different bias types encountered in the virtual academic setting (Fair Play Project, 2018).

To understand the look of the game, the screenshot below shows Morgan, one of the non-primary characters, commenting about Jamal’s presence on campus (Figure 2). Through this encounter, the player is alerted to the bias known as competency proving and they are able to respond to it as Jamal. (Competency proving is when members of minority groups frequently and repeatedly have to demonstrate that they are qualified, capable, and/or competent. See for example, Biernat & Kobrynowicz, 1997; Cheryan & Bodenhausen, 2000; Hodson et al., 2002.)

Figure 2.

Figure 2.

Open in a new tab

Screenshot from Fair Play in which Jamal encounters a bias incident.

The game also includes an interactive Almanac that provides the definitions of the concepts, in-game examples, and approximately 5–15 citations for each bias concept (Figures 3 and 4).

Figure 3.

Figure 3.

Open in a new tab

References in the Almanac.

Figure 4.

Figure 4.

Open in a new tab

Bias concept and in-game examples.

The next examples describe how other characters interact with Jamal and the resulting biases that he, and thus the player, encounters. The third example shows how the environment is also a source of examples of bias throughout the game (Figure 5). Along with the game itself, the Fair Play Facilitator Game was created and contains all of the bias incidents that players could possibly encounter in the game. This standalone game allows a facilitator to jump to any of the bias incidents through either the chapter in which it was located, or the type of bias that it represents. This is a useful tool for facilitators that allows them to show and discuss a particular bias incident if some of the workshop participants did not get to a particular chapter or concept during their gameplay. The screenshots below show the menu (Figure 6), biases (Figure 7), chapters (Figure 8), and almanac (Figure 9) options for the Fair Play Facilitator Game.

Figure 5.

Figure 5.

Open in a new tab

Examples of characters, bias concepts and incidents in Fair Play.

Figure 6.

Figure 6.

Open in a new tab

Screenshot of Facilitator Guide menu.

Figure 7.

Figure 7.

Open in a new tab

Screenshot of bias selection option.

Figure 8.

Figure 8.

Open in a new tab

Screenshot of chapter selection option.

Figure 9.

Figure 9.

Open in a new tab

Screenshot of Almanac.

To support the facilitator in using the game and conducting a workshop, a website and facilitator resource handbook was developed to house all necessary materials to thoroughly understand how the game was developed, the evidence-base for the bias concepts, a summary of each of the chapters of the game, and short bios about each of the characters (see Figures 10 and 11).

Figure 10.

Figure 10.

Open in a new tab

Online resources for facilitators.

Figure 11.

Figure 11.

Open in a new tab

Facilitator Resource Guide.

Facilitation Content and Process

During playtesting of the game, we realized that a complementary workshop would enhance the learning of the target audience and the impact of Fair Play. A number of similar competencies—both skills and knowledge—are needed to facilitate the game and workshop. These can be broken down into knowledge about the content of the game, as well as how to facilitate and process the game itself with players.

Explaining the Content of the Game

Facilitators need to thoroughly understand the concepts and supporting literature for each of the biases represented in the game. The biases below are the basis for the incidents and consequences faced by Jamal and other characters (Fair Play Project, 2018; Kaatz et al., 2017):

  • Attributional Rationalization: Group stereotypes may lead to assumptions that people from underrepresented groups are less competent than their majority peers. As a result, they may not receive credit for their accomplishments, which are often incorrectly attributed to others or to factors other than their efforts (e.g., luck).

  • Color-Blind Racial Attitudes: Color-blind racial attitudes reflect the belief that discrimination no longer exists. Though based on the positive premise that we should all be treated equally, a color-blind approach discounts the experiences of members of minority groups and can backfire to promote bias.

  • Failure to Differentiate: Members of a particular minority group may sometimes be mistaken for one another by a person from a different group. All groups share this unintentional recognition bias, but research suggests the effect is most pronounced for White individuals when viewing racial and ethnic minorities.

  • Racial Microaggressions: Microaggressions are brief and subtle comments, behaviors, or environmental cues that intentionally or unintentionally communicate hostile, derogatory, or unwelcoming messages toward members of underrepresented groups. When accumulated, these seemingly minor messages lead to harmful isolation and alienation. There are three types of microaggressions: microassaults, microinsults, and microinvalidations.

  • Shifting Standards of Judgment: The presumed incompetence of members of underrepresented groups causes well-qualified individuals to be judged as highly competent, when compared to members of their group. But, they are held to even higher standards and require greater proof of competence than comparable members of the majority group.

  • Status Leveling: Based on stereotypes about the lower social standing of minority groups, status leveling occurs when a person from an underrepresented group is assumed to belong to a lower social category or position.

  • Tokenism: Tokenism is treating members of minority groups as representative of their entire group rather than as individuals, especially when they are a numeric minority or the only person from that group present (solo status).

  • Impression Management: People from historically low status or underrepresented groups must often pay more conscious attention to how they behave or dress to manage how people see them (e.g., a Black student may consciously modulate his/her tone of voice or volume of speech to prevent activating the racial stereotype of being angry or aggressive).

  • Stereotype Threat: Stereotype threat occurs when awareness of negative stereotypes about one’s own group induces stress and anxiety about confirming the stereotype. Situations that consciously or unconsciously trigger stereotype threat can lead members of minority groups to underperform relative to their ability.

If facilitators are using the game within a workshop, they need to be able to describe the research articles that are complementary to the game. Examples of research articles we commonly use include ones that show differences in how Black leaders are portrayed (Carton & Rosette, 2011), hiring patterns based on names that have racial/ethnic connotations (King et al., 2006), and how expectations of brilliance are correlated across academic disciplines (Leslie et al., 2015).

Processing the Game

Neither playing Fair Play nor participating in the workshop is intended to induce feelings of guilt or shame (Zheng, 2016). Rather, facilitators share that all of us have bias and it is through awareness and literacy, we can actively and intentionally decrease it. Because the topic of implicit bias can be uncomfortable, a presenter who can talk about the ways in which they have done something biased allows for an openness and vulnerability that resonates with the players/workshop participants. Learning is also enhanced when facilitators describe their lived and personal experiences of bias while discussing the game and bias concepts.

After playing the game, approximately 30-45 minutes are spent processing and reflecting on the players’ experiences (Ryan & Ryan, 2015). Four open-ended questions guide this discussion:

  • What were the feelings you experienced while playing the game?

  • Which of the characters did you relate to? How?

  • Which of the characters did you struggle with? Why?

  • Have you experienced, witnessed, or heard about any of the experiences reflected in the game?

Facilitating this reflection time requires finding ways to connect with the audience and allowing them to speak freely and without judgement. Facilitators also need to be able to respond appropriately if an insensitive comment is made by a workshop participant. This requires facilitation skills to address the comment, yet mitigate against any negative impact it may have on others.

In our experience, people process the game differently based on many personal attributes. Players who are persons of color state that they feel validated and consider the game correct, affirming, and very similar to their experience. We included people in the demographic group of Jamal in the original design and playtesting to ensure authenticity of Jamal’s experiences. Hearing these reactions are affirming yet also disheartening. Occasionally, people share that the examples do not represent the extreme level at which they have personally experienced racial bias.

Some majority players think that the biases are over the top and would never happen. At one institution, a member in the audience said, “this would never happen here – we have processes and policies in place to protect our students.” The facilitator noticed that the students and faculty of color were noticeably silent when she said that. As a facilitator, we acknowledge a participant’s comment and view. Sometimes we will reply, “Does anyone else have a comment?” or “Has anyone had a different experience?” We often go back to the research and cite relevant studies and findings. We have found that this approach resonates with STEMM faculty. As an example, if someone says these bias encounters are trivial and people should “just get over it,” a facilitator might say something like, “There have been multiple studies surveying employees that find if someone perceives that they are experiencing discrimination in the workplace, they are much more likely to leave the organization. Certainly, faculty turnover in STEMM is very costly to any organization,” or something similar. We then cite a relevant study, the author, where the research was conducted and give a brief summary of the study.

Facilitators are often asked about some of the initial game design choices. One, in particular, leads to much discussion and provides opportunities for learning. In the game, a number of the characters have a voice track, which means that the players hear them speak—they have distinct voices and the players come to know them. Some of the non-primary characters do not have a voice track and they only speak through thought bubbles. Jamal does not have a voice track and only speaks when the player gets to choose how to respond to a bias event. Because this game is about implicit bias and how stereotypes are the basis for this, we knew that any voice—and their corresponding tone and dialect—would also lead to stereotyping and bias. There is no correct way for a Black male to sound and tones and pitches can vary. The lack of an audible voice removes a barrier that a player may have focused on and this design choice keeps them engaged with the bias content that the game was created to highlight. Furthermore, to ensure that the player became Jamal through self-presence and perspective-taking (i.e., experienced avatar immersion), we decided that we wanted the player to hear their voice as Jamal’s (Behm-Morawitz et al., 2016).

Finally, we intentionally programmed the game such that even though all of the players experience many of the same bias incidents, they have one of two endings—they successfully graduate and are a successful faculty member or they drop out of graduate school. This is random and is not due to anything that the player does or does not do. When debriefing this outcome, we discuss how the experiences of Black graduate students are fraught with bias and that they may or may not be retained. Our discussion then turns to the strategies that the participants can do to address bias in themselves and their environments.

Conclusions

Our research and evaluation findings demonstrate that the game situated within the workshop simultaneously promotes perspective-taking and increases participants’ bias literacy. That said, the facilitation of these workshops and the Fair Play game requires skillful navigation due to its topic (racial bias) and player’s skepticism about the reality of the bias incidents portrayed in the game, all of which were developed and based on a large body of research findings. For example, our data suggest that participants who identify as a person of color are more likely to believe that bias exists compared to White players, which can lead to the need to facilitate a discussion about how the incidents in the game were designed and scripted (Kaatz et al., 2017). The facilitator also needs to be versed in a number of intentional design choices to increase player experience, such as Jamal not having voiceover and if he makes it through graduate school. Finally, this paper describes some of the tools needed to facilitate, including the Facilitator Game, which was developed as a complement to Fair Play and allows a facilitator to jump to bias incidents quickly while debriefing and discussing the game to enhance participant learning.

Supplementary Material

Fair Play Resource Guide

Funding

The author(s) disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship and/or publication of this article: This work is supported by the NIH under Award Numbers DP4 GM096822 (2010-2014, Carnes), R25 GM114002 (2015-2020, Pribbenow), and the University of Wisconsin System Administration Growth Agenda for Wisconsin Grants Program (2014-2016, Pribbenow).

Biographies

Christine Maidl Pribbenow is a senior scientist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests include the broadening the participation of underrepresented racial, ethnic and gender minorities in STEMM, evaluating interventions, and the climate for learning and working in postsecondary education institutions.

Kyrie Eleison H. Caldwell is an educational researcher at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests include the philosophy and ethics of social scientific methodology and the use of digital media and culturally meaningful creative practices in teaching and learning.

Donald Dejon Dantzler is an outreach specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His research interests include intervention mechanisms that aid in the educational success of Black males and examining wage and employment differences in the teaching labor market.

Percy Brown, Jr. is an outreach specialist at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. His educational areas of expertise include issues of race, diversity, equity and inclusion for institutions of learning.

Molly Carnes is a professor of Medicine, Psychiatry, and Industrial & Systems Engineering at the University of Wisconsin-Madison. Her research interests are how stereotypes perpetuate inequities and developing, testing and disseminating mitigating interventions.

Footnotes

Declaration of conflicting interests

The author(s) declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.

References

  1. Aguirre A (2006). Women and minority faculty in the academic workplace: Recruitment, retention, and academic culture. ASHE-ERIC Higher Education Report (Vol. 27). San Francisco, CA: Jossey-Bass. [Google Scholar]
  2. Bedwell WL, Pavlas D, Heyne K, Lazzara EH, & Salas E (2012). Toward a taxonomy linking game attributes to learning: An empirical study. Simulation & Gaming, 43(6), 729–760. 10.1177/1046878112439444 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  3. Behm-Morawitz E, Pennell H, & Speno AG (2016). The effects of virtual racial embodiment in a gaming app on reducing prejudice. Communication Monographs,83(3), 396–418. 10.1080/03637751.2015.1128556 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  4. Biernat M, & Kobrynowicz D (1997). Gender- and race-based standards of competence: Lower minimum standards but higher ability standards for devalued groups. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 72(3), 544–557. 10.1037/0022-3514.72.3.544 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  5. Carnes M, Devine P, Isaac C, Manwell LB, Ford C, Byars-Winston A, Fine E, Burke D, & Sheridan J (2012). Promoting institutional change through bias literacy. Journal of Diversity in Higher Education,5(2), 63–77. 10.1037/a0028128 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  6. Carnes M, Devine PG, Manwell LB, Byars-Winston A, Fine E, Ford CE, Forscher P, Isaac C, Kaatz A, Magua W, Palta M, & Sheridan J (2015). Effect of an intervention to break the gender bias habit: A cluster randomized, controlled trial. Academic Medicine,90(2), 221–230. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  7. Carton AM, & Rosette AS (2011). Explaining bias against black leaders: Integrating theory on information processing and goal-based stereotyping. Academy of Management Journal, 54(6), 1141–1158. 10.5465/amj.2009.0745 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  8. Cheryan S, & Bodenhausen GV (2000). When positive stereotypes threaten intellectual performance: The psychological hazards of ‘model minority’ status. Psychological Science, 11(5), 399–402. 10.1111/1467-9280.00277 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  9. Davis MH, Conklin L, Smith A, & Luce C (1996). Effect of perspective taking on the cognitive representation of persons: A merging of self and other. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology,70(4), 713–726. 10.1037/0022-3514.70.4.713 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  10. Devine PG (1989). Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 56(1), 5–18. 10.1037//0022-3514.56.1.5 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  11. Devine PG, Forscher PS, Austin AJ, & Cox WTL (2012). Long-term reduction in implicit race bias: A prejudice habit-breaking intervention. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(6), 1267–1278. 10.1016/j.jesp.2012.06.003 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  12. Devine PG, Forscher PS, Cox WTL, Kaatz A, Sheridan J, & Carnes M (2017). A gender bias habit-breaking intervention led to increased hiring of female faculty in STEMM departments. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology,73(1), 211–215. 10.1016/j.jesp.2017.07.002 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  13. Fair Play Project. (2018). Fair Play facilitator guide. workshops.fairplaygame.org; fairplaygame.org [Google Scholar]
  14. Fisher AJ, Mendoza-Denton R, Patt C, Young I, Eppig A, Garrell RL, Rees DC Nelson TW., & Richards MA (2019). Structure and belonging: Pathways to success for underrepresented minority and women PhD students in STEM fields. PLoS ONE 14(1), e0209279. 10.1371/journal.pone.0209279 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  15. Galinsky AD, Ku G, & Wang C (2005). Perspective-taking and self-other overlap: Fostering social bonds and facilitating social coordination. Group Processes & Intergroup Relations,8(2), 109–124. 10.1177/1368430205051060 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  16. Gehlbach H, Marietta G, King AM, Karutz C, Bailenson JN, & Dede C (2015). Many ways to walk a mile in another’s moccasins: Type of social perspective taking and its effect on negotiation outcomes. Computers in Human Behavior, 52(C), 523–532. 10.1016/j.chb.2014.12.035 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  17. Gutierrez B, Kaatz A, Chu S, Ramirez D, Samson-Samuel C, & Carnes M (2014). Fair Play: A video game designed to address implicit race bias through active perspective taking. Games for Health Journal,3(6), 371–380. 10.1089/g4h.2013.0071 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  18. Herrera F, Bailenson J, Weisz E, Ogle E, & Zaki J (2018). Building long-term empathy: A large-scale comparison of traditional and virtual reality perspective-taking. PLoS ONE,13(10), e0204494. 10.1371/journal.pone.0204494 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  19. Hodson G, Dovidio JF, & Gaertner SL (2002). Processes in racial discrimination: Differential weighting of conflicting information. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 28(4), 460–471. 10.1177/0146167202287004 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  20. Kaatz A, Carnes M, Gutierrez B, Savoy J, Samuel C, Filut A, & Pribbenow CM (2017). Fair Play: A study of scientific workforce trainers’ experience playing an educational video game about racial bias. CBE-Life Sciences Education, 16(27). 10.1187/cbe.15-06-0140 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  21. King EB, Mendoza SA, Madera JM, Hebl MR, & Knight JL (2006). What’s in a name? A multiracial investigation of the role of occupational stereotypes in selection decisions. Journal of Applied Social Psychology, 36(5), 1145–1159. 10.1111/j.0021-9029.2006.00035.x [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  22. Landers RN (2014). Developing a theory of gamified learning: Linking serious games and gamification of learning. Simulation & Gaming,45(6), 752–768. 10.1177/1046878114563660 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  23. Leslie SJ, Cimpian A, Meyer M, & Freeland E (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science, 347(6219), 262–265. 10.1126/science.1261375 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  24. Michael DR, & Chen SL (2005). Serious games: Games that educate, train, and inform. Muska & Lipman/Premier-Trade. [Google Scholar]
  25. Monterrat B., Lavoué É., & George S. (2017). Adaptation of gaming features for motivating learners. Simulation and Gaming;656. 10.1177/1046878117712632 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  26. Niemann YF (1999). The making of a token: A case study of stereotype threat, stigma, racism, and tokenism in academe. Frontiers: A Journal of Women Studies, 20(1), 111–134. 10.2307/3346994 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  27. Pololi L, Cooper L, & Carr P (2010). Race, disadvantage and faculty experiences in academic medicine. Journal of General Internal Medicine, 25(12), 1363–1369. 10.1007/s11606-010-1478-7 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  28. Reyes XA (2005). Dissonance in the academy: Reflections of a Latina professor. Latino Studies 3(2), 274–279. 10.1057/palgrave.lst.8600137 [DOI] [Google Scholar]
  29. Ryan M, & Ryan M (2015). A model for reflection in the pedagogic field of higher education. In Ryan M (Ed.), Teaching reflective learning in higher education: A systematic approach using pedagogic patterns, (15–27). Switzerland: Springer International Publishing. [Google Scholar]
  30. Sevo R, & Chubin DE. (2008). Bias literacy: A review of concepts in research on discrimination, AAAS Center for Science & Engineering Capacity. http://www.napequity.org/nape-content/uploads/8-BiasLiteracy.pdf [Google Scholar]
  31. Todd AR, & Bodenhausen GV (2011). Perspective taking combats automatic expressions of racial bias. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 100(6), 1027–1042. 10.1037/a0022308 [DOI] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  32. van Loon A, Bailenson J, Zaki J, Bostick J & Willer R (2018). Virtual reality perspective-taking increases cognitive empathy for specific others. PLoS ONE,13(8): e0202442. 10.1371/journal.pone.0202442 [DOI] [PMC free article] [PubMed] [Google Scholar]
  33. Williams M (2012). Perspective taking building positive interpersonal connections and trustworthiness one interaction at a time. In Cameron KS & Spreitzer GM (Eds.), The Oxford handbook of positive organizational scholarship, (462–473). New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]
  34. Zheng R (2016). Attributability, accountability, and implicit bias. In: Brownstein M, Saul J. (Eds.), Implicit Bias and Philosophy. New York, NY: Oxford University Press. [Google Scholar]

Associated Data

This section collects any data citations, data availability statements, or supplementary materials included in this article.

Supplementary Materials

Fair Play Resource Guide
NIHMS2173654-supplement-Fair_Play_Resource_Guide.pdf (13.1MB, pdf)

RESOURCES