Hostname: page-component-586b7cd67f-2plfb Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-11-27T18:37:33.294Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false

Wise interventions consider the person and the situation together

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  30 August 2023

Gregory M. Walton
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA [email protected]; http://gregorywalton-stanford.weebly.com/
David S. Yeager
Affiliation:
Department of Psychology, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, TX, USA [email protected]; https://txbspi.prc.utexas.edu/

Abstract

Chater & Loewenstein (C&L) ignore the long history by which social scientists have developed more nuanced and ultimately more helpful ways to understand the relationship between persons and situations. This tradition is reflected and advanced in a large literature on “wise” social–psychological or mindset interventions, which C&L do not discuss yet mischaracterize.

Type
Open Peer Commentary
Copyright
Copyright © The Author(s), 2023. Published by Cambridge University Press

Chater & Loewenstein (C&L) argue that behavioral scientists have under-appreciated the role of the context in social change. On that we agree. But this is hardly an original point. When C&L say “the real problem lies not in human fallibility, but in institutions, laws and regulations” (target article, sect. 3, para. 4) they are reiterating 100 years of sociology (which they call the “future” of behavioral economics). They are also making a case for 80-year-old theoretical principles from Kurt Lewin, who founded the tradition they critique (yet do not cite). It is a problem that C&L do not wrestle with the intellectual histories that directly address the relationship between persons and situations in social change (e.g., Bronfenbrenner, Reference Bronfenbrenner and Vasta1992; Coleman, Reference Coleman1966, Reference Coleman1994; Lewin, Reference Lewin1951; Markus & Kitayama, Reference Markus and Kitayama2010; Ross & Nisbett, Reference Ross and Nisbett1991; Walton & Wilson, Reference Walton and Wilson2018) because much of their article critiques a belief that nobody holds. Here we discuss the Lewinian perspective, and why cross-disciplinary solutions coming from this tradition should be encouraged. To do so, we focus on the example of “wise” interventions (Walton & Wilson, Reference Walton and Wilson2018) that mitigate educational inequality.

C&L claim:

Much of the research [on growth mindset or stereotype threat] has hinted, or even explicitly proposed, that these interventions can counteract the impact of low-quality education (target article, sect. 2.5.1, para. 2).

Really? In 2011, we wrote that wise interventions “are not silver bullets” (Yeager & Walton, Reference Yeager and Walton2011, p. 268), that these interventions “complement – and do not replace – traditional educational reforms,” and that it would be “absurd” to think of the former as a replacement for the latter (p. 293). Instead, we argued, wise “interventions may make the effects of high-quality educational reforms such as improved instruction or curricula more apparent” (p. 293). Why? Because clearing psychological obstacles like feelings of non-belonging or beliefs about fixed intelligence allows students to take advantage of the opportunities available to them.

This is not just our view. These claims were summarized well by Wilson's (Reference Wilson2006) earlier conclusion that “the fact that small, theory-based interventions can have large effects should not be taken as a criticism of large-scale attempts at social change. As important as people's construals of the environment are, often the environment itself needs changing” (p. 1252).

This theorizing developed from a long tradition showing that neither i-frame nor s-frame solutions, in isolation, have the desired effects. Students won't learn what they aren't taught. But they also won't learn, at least not as well as they could, if they doubt they belong in class. Construals such as of non-belonging are what wise interventions address. These interventions help students contend with psychological vulnerabilities that get in their way. Importantly, these vulnerabilities come from contexts – a fact that contradicts the authors’ false dichotomy. It is our fixed-mindset culture that provokes fixed-mindset thoughts. Praise for being “smart,” paternalistic sympathy (“It's okay. Not everyone can be good at math”), and “Gifted and Talented” programs all prompt a student who struggles to wonder, “Am I dumb at this?” and then avoid challenges (Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer, & Freeland, Reference Leslie, Cimpian, Meyer and Freeland2015; Mueller & Dweck, Reference Mueller and Dweck1998; Rattan, Good, & Dweck, Reference Rattan, Good and Dweck2012).

Nor do wise interventions work in a vacuum. These are not isolated “i-frame” solutions. C&L conflate a methodological choice (individual-level randomization) with a theoretical problem (locating problems in the person alone). Although individuals are treated, these treatments are fundamentally person × situation approaches. They address legacies of culture and depend for their effects on other “forces” in complex systems, in the tradition of Lewinian field theory (Walton & Wilson, Reference Walton and Wilson2018; Yeager & Walton, Reference Yeager and Walton2011).

The argument that we should reject an exclusively i-framed ideology is therefore a straw man. This caricature in turn leads to naïve recommendations to “change the situation.” This approach has been tried, often without success, for decades, as we have known since the 1966 publication of sociologist James Coleman's famous report on educational inequality to inform Johnson's (s-framed) Great Society reforms. The failure of solitary s-framed treatments is because inequality is both a behavioral and structural problem. See Table 1.

Table 1. Conclusions from the Coleman report

We and other researchers have long been working to break down the false dichotomy between persons and situations. At least three key advances have emerged:

  1. (1) Anticipate heterogeneity, not main effects: One should not expect strong main effects but variable effects in different contexts (for i-frame interventions) and among different individuals (for s-frame interventions) (Bryan, Tipton, & Yeager, Reference Bryan, Tipton and Yeager2021; Tipton et al., Reference Tipton, Bryan, Murray, McDaniel, Schneider and Yeagerin press; Walton et al., Reference Walton, Murphy, Logel, Yeager, Goyer, Brady and Krol2023; Yeager et al., Reference Yeager, Hanselman, Walton, Murray, Crosnoe, Muller and Dweck2019). C&L ignore this, claiming that small average effects for nudges indict the field. Yet the question should be: How and under what circumstances can effects be optimized? See Table 2.

  2. (2) Study individual × context heterogeneity directly: Heterogeneity is what we should study (Bryan et al., Reference Bryan, Tipton and Yeager2021; Tipton et al., Reference Tipton, Bryan, Murray, McDaniel, Schneider and Yeagerin press), and this is a focus of contemporary research on wise interventions. See Table 2. Large-scale trials show the importance of “sustaining environments” (Bailey, Duncan, Cunha, Foorman, & Yeager, Reference Bailey, Duncan, Cunha, Foorman and Yeager2020). This is because wise interventions seed ways of thinking. But the soil has to be fertile for that seed to take root. That is, people must find the proffered way of thinking legitimate and useful in their context to sustain it and use it to guide their interpretations of and response to ongoing experience (Walton & Yeager, Reference Walton and Yeager2020).

  3. (3) Create team-science infrastructure to integrate i- and s-frame solutions: It is false that the i-frame “blinds” behavioral scientists to s-frame solutions. The Lewinian tradition has always considered both the individual and the context. What, then, explains the relative abundance of i-frame experiments? We think it is partially because randomizing contexts (e.g., classrooms, schools) are far more difficult (costly, slow) than individuals. So, let's take a page from Nudge: Make it cheap and easy. Rather than pointing fingers, let's build public, shared infrastructure to support teams to systematically explore the roles of contexts and individuals navigating these contexts. Already, wise interventions have helped show what aspects of context to shift. See Table 2. We look forward to future work that integrates persons and situations to promote positive, sustainable social change.

Table 2. Advances that arise from considering the roles of persons and situations together

Financial support

The first author was supported by a fellowship from the Center for the Advanced Study of Behavioral Sciences in writing of this commentary.

Competing interest

None.

References

Bailey, D. H., Duncan, G. J., Cunha, F., Foorman, B. R., & Yeager, D. S. (2020). Persistence and fade-out of educational-intervention effects: Mechanisms and potential solutions. Psychological Science in the Public Interest, 21(2), 5597. https://doi.org/10.1177/1529100620915848CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Bronfenbrenner, U. (1992). Ecological systems theory. In Vasta, R. (Ed.), Six theories of child development: Revised formulations and current issues (pp. 187249). Jessica Kingsley.Google Scholar
Bryan, C. J., Tipton, E., & Yeager, D. S. (2021). Behavioural science is unlikely to change the world without a heterogeneity revolution. Nature Human Behaviour, 5(8), 980989. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-021-01143-3CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Coleman, J. S. (1966). Equality of educational opportunity. U.S. Department of Health, Education.Google Scholar
Coleman, J. S. (1994). Foundations of social theory. Harvard University Press.Google Scholar
Leslie, S.-J., Cimpian, A., Meyer, M., & Freeland, E. (2015). Expectations of brilliance underlie gender distributions across academic disciplines. Science (New York, N.Y.), 347(6219), 262265. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1261375CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Lewin, K. (1951). Field theory in social science: Selected theoretical papers (Edited by Dorwin Cartwright.) (pp. xx, 346). Harpers.Google Scholar
Markus, H. R., & Kitayama, S. (2010). Cultures and selves: A cycle of mutual constitution. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 5, 420430. https://doi.org/10.1177/1745691610375557CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Mertens, S., Herberz, M., Hahnel, U. J., & Brosch, T. (2022). The effectiveness of nudging: A meta-analysis of choice architecture interventions across behavioral domains. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 119(1), e2107346118.CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Mueller, C. M., & Dweck, C. S. (1998). Praise for intelligence can undermine children's motivation and performance. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 75, 3352. https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.75.1.33CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Murrar, S., Campbell, M. R., & Brauer, M. (2020). Exposure to peers’ pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap. Nature Human Behaviour, 4(9), 889897. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41562-020-0899-5CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okonofua, J. A., Goyer, J. P., Lindsay, C. A., Haugabrook, J., & Walton, G. M. (2022). A scalable empathic-mindset intervention reduces group disparities in school suspensions. Science Advances, 8(12), eabj0691. https://doi.org/10.1126/sciadv.abj0691CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Okonofua, J. A., Paunesku, D., & Walton, G. M. (2016). Brief intervention to encourage empathic discipline cuts suspension rates in half among adolescents. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 113(19), 52215226. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.1523698113CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Rattan, A., Good, C., & Dweck, C. S. (2012). “It's ok – Not everyone can be good at math”: Instructors with an entity theory comfort (and demotivate) students. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 48(3), 731737. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jesp.2011.12.012CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Ross, L., & Nisbett, R. E. (1991). The person and the situation: Perspectives of social psychology. Temple University Press.Google Scholar
Szaszi, B., Higney, A., Charlton, A., Gelman, A., Ziano, I., Aczel, B., … Tipton, E. (2022). No reason to expect large and consistent effects of nudge interventions. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the USA, 119(31), e2200732119. https://doi.org/10.1073/pnas.2200732119CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Tipton, E., Bryan, C., Murray, J., McDaniel, M., Schneider, B., & Yeager, D. S. (in press). Why meta-analyses of growth mindset and other interventions should follow best practices for examining heterogeneity. Psychological Bulletin.Google Scholar
Trzesniewski, K., Yeager, D., Catalán Molina, D., Claro, S., Oberle, C., & Murphy, M. (2021). Global mindset initiative paper 3: Measuring growth mindset classroom cultures (SSRN Scholarly Paper No. 3911591). https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3911591CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. M., Murphy, M. M., Logel, C., Yeager, D. S., Goyer, J. P., Brady, S. T., … Krol, N. (2023). Where and with whom does a brief social-belonging intervention promote progress in college? Science, 380, 499505.CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. M., Okonofua, J. A., Remington Cunningham, K., Hurst, D., Pinedo, A., Weitz, E., … Eberhardt, J. L. (2021). Lifting the bar: A relationship-orienting intervention reduces recidivism among children reentering school from juvenile detention. Psychological Science, 32(11), 17471767. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211013801CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Walton, G. M., & Wilson, T. D. (2018). Wise interventions: Psychological remedies for social and personal problems. Psychological Review, 125(5), 617. https://doi.org/10.1037/rev0000115CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Walton, G. M., & Yeager, D. S. (2020). Seed and soil: Psychological affordances in contexts help to explain where wise interventions succeed or fail. Current Directions in Psychological Science, 29(3), 219226. https://doi.org/10.1177/0963721420904453CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Wilson, T. D. (2006). The power of social psychological interventions. Science (New York, N.Y.), 313(5791), 12511252. https://doi.org/10.1126/science.1133017CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeager, D. S., Carroll, J. M., Buontempo, J., Cimpian, A., Woody, S., Crosnoe, R., … Dweck, C. S. (2022). Teacher mindsets help explain where a growth-mindset intervention does and doesn't work. Psychological Science, 33(1), 1832. https://doi.org/10.1177/09567976211028984CrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeager, D. S., Hanselman, P., Walton, G. M., Murray, J. S., Crosnoe, R., Muller, C., … Dweck, C. S. (2019). A national experiment reveals where a growth mindset improves achievement. Nature, 573(7774), 364369. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41586-019-1466-yCrossRefGoogle ScholarPubMed
Yeager, D. S., & Walton, G. M. (2011). Social–psychological interventions in education: They're not magic. Review of Educational Research, 81(2), 267301. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654311405999CrossRefGoogle Scholar
Figure 0

Table 1. Conclusions from the Coleman report

Figure 1

Table 2. Advances that arise from considering the roles of persons and situations together