Abstract
In this article, we present the results of two studies that evaluated an experiential intersectionality awareness activity, C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life. For Study 1 (N = 55), we content analyzed students’ short answer responses about inequality written before and after playing C’est La Vie. Study 2 compared a C’est La Vie treatment group (N = 179) to a lecture-as-usual control condition (N = 64). Across both studies, playing C’est La Vie was associated with an expanded awareness of privilege and structural inequality. Follow-up analyses with a subset of Study 2 control participants (N = 27) established that participants who were originally in the control group experienced gains in awareness of privilege and structural inequality (relative to pretest and the lecture-as-usual) only after being exposed to C’est La Vie. The results are interpreted within the context of an intersectionality framework.
The American Psychological Association (APA, 2013) calls for diversity content to be infused across the psychology curriculum (see also Boysen, 2011; Littleford, 2013; Occampo et al., 2003). Diversity encompasses the intersection of many differing social identities, including those related to “race, ethnicity, gender identity/expression, sexual orientation, age, religious affiliation, health and disability status, national identity and immigration status, and social class, among other sociocultural differences and distinctions” (APA, 2013, p. 12). An intersectionality approach to diversity recognizes that these social identities interact within systems of structural inequality designed to privilege some and marginalize others (Black & Stone, 2005; Case, 2013; Pratto & Stewart, 2012). Individuals with more privileged identities experience the greatest advantages in society, whereas individuals with several marginalized identities are likely to experience the most discrimination and oppression (Black & Stone, 2005; Case, 2013; Robinson, 1999). In this article, we discuss the advantages of adopting an intersectionality approach when teaching about issues of privilege and structural inequality. We also discuss the utility of using an experiential simulation activity to facilitate these discussions. Finally, we present the methods and results of two studies that empirically evaluated an experiential intersectionality awareness activity, C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life (Bramesfeld, 2015).
Intersectionality Approach
People typically accept that interpersonal prejudice contributes to discrimination (Case & Cole, 2013; Lowery, Knowles, & Unzueta, 2007). But members of dominant groups may be less likely to acknowledge that they receive unearned privileges and advantages as part of an overall system of structural inequality (Ferber & Herrera, 2013; Lowery et al., 2007; Powell, Branscombe, & Schmitt, 2005; Pratto & Stewart, 2012). Indeed, individuals with privileged identities are likely to assume that their experiences are normative and the opportunities available to them are also available to everyone else (Ferber & Herrera, 2013; Pratto & Stewart, 2012). In contrast, individuals with marginalized identities are often very aware of the ways in which structural inequality works against them (Williams & Melchiori, 2013).
These differing worldviews can pose significant challenges for faculty trying to teach about diversity (Platt, 2013; Watt, 2007; Wise & Case, 2013). When faculty focus on single domains of inequality, these discussions can quickly devolve into “us versus them” dichotomies that pit students with privileged identities against those with marginalized identities (Banks, Pliner, & Hopkins, 2013). This can result in students reacting with defensiveness and anger and withdrawing from the conversation (Boatright-Horowitz, Marraccini, & Harps-Logan, 2012; Watt, 2007).
Focusing on intersecting identities may be an important tool for helping faculty manage students’ emotional reactions to these discussions (Case, 2013). Because most students possess both privileged and marginalized identities, focusing on intersectionality provides students with more perspectives in which they can relate to discussions of privilege (Ferber & Herrera, 2013; Platt, 2013; Wise & Case, 2013). An intersectionality approach also guards against the temptation to make sweeping generalizations about specific social groups, as this approach considers the compounding effects of privilege and marginalization across multiple identities (Ferber & Herrera, 2013). As a consequence, a focus on intersectionality can help students unpack topics of privilege and structural inequality at a deeper level (Banks et al., 2013). Unfortunately, few empirically validated resources exist to help faculty teach about inequality from an intersectionality perspective (Case, 2013; Ferber & Herrera, 2013).
Experiential Simulation Activities
We propose that an experiential simulation activity may be the ideal tool for facilitating these discussions. Simulation activities allow students to experience aspects of a situation from a new perspective (Beelman & Heinemann, 2014; Dorn, 1989; Enns, 1993; Kolb, 1984). They also allow students to externalize their emotional reactions onto the simulation game, which can reduce feelings of defensiveness (Simpson & Elias, 2011) and facilitate deeper self-reflection about the role of privilege in one’s own life (Patrick & Connolly, 2013).
Simulation games can also be used to demonstrate larger scale patterns. For example, Shields, Zawadzki, and Johnson (2011) used a simulation board game, WAGES-academic, to demonstrate concepts of male privilege to undergraduate students. For the game, students were assigned to the white team (representing men) or the green team (representing women) and played an academic board game where the goal was to earn enough tokens to achieve tenure. At various points along the board game, the white team was given slight advantages that the green team did not receive. In this way, the game was used to highlight how seemingly small and inconsequential gender inequalities can add up to very large gender gaps over time. Similarly, as part of a poverty simulation, Bramesfeld and Good (2015) had students draw an income at random. Students then used this income to try and maximize educational credits and health during a two-part board game (representing childhood and adulthood). Because increased wealth led to greater educational opportunities and fewer health problems, the game was able to demonstrate how social class privilege has far-reaching implications for education, health, and overall success.
Games like these provide a nonthreatening environment in which to deconstruct sources of privilege and structural inequality (Bramesfeld & Good, 2015; Shields et al., 2011). Still, like many other tools designed to help faculty teach about inequality, these games focused primarily on a single domain (e.g., gender or poverty). They also relied on small group interactions, limiting their use in large enrollment courses where diversity material is often introduced. What is needed, then, is an activity that teaches students about privilege and structural inequality from an intersectionality perspective, which can also be used in small or large enrollment courses.
The Current Research
The purpose of the current research was to assess the use of a simulation activity, C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life (Bramesfeld, 2015). The activity is designed to help faculty teach about privilege and structural inequality from an intersectionality perspective. A detailed description of the activity, including access to resource materials, is published with the Office of Teaching Resources in Psychology (OTRP; Bramesfeld, 2015). Because the reader can refer to this resource for details, we present only a brief overview of the game within the next section of this article. We then describe the methods and results of two studies that assessed whether the game was associated with an increased acknowledgment of privilege and structural inequality.
C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life
C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life is an intersectionality awareness activity that is played in 1–2 hr, with at least one additional hour reserved for discussion and debriefing. This time frame corresponds with the average of 3–5 hr that psychology faculty typically devote to teaching about diversity (Boysen, 2011). The game can be played consecutively in a 3-hr class period or workshop (as assessed within this paper) or broken up over several 45- to 75-min class periods (see Bramesfeld, 2015). Alterations can also be made by reducing the number of decision scenarios presented (see Bramesfeld, 2015).
To play C’est La Vie, students pick at random one of 64 unique character profiles and then use the resources described in that profile to play a strategy game. The profile describes the character’s race/ethnicity, citizenship status, ability to vote, gender, sexual orientation, and presence or absence of a disability. Each character also receives a starting amount of money credits to represent social class. Social privilege is presented via zero to seven bonus credits (Black & Stone, 2005). Characters with more privileged identities receive the most bonus credits.
Players then make decisions during a strategy game that results in the gain (or loss) of money, bonuses, experience, and wellness for their character. Decision scenarios are displayed on a PowerPoint slide by the facilitator and decision choices are recorded by the players on individual score cards. In this way, the game can be implemented in small or large enrollment settings. Each decision in the game carries with it consequences that affect other aspects of the game. For example, early in the game students choose housing from different neighborhoods. The choice of neighborhood affects wellness and school choice. School choice then affects educational opportunities, which later affects access to employment opportunities, which in turn affects access to health care (Cohen & Syme, 2013; Pascoe & Smart Richman, 2009; Prilleltensky, 2008; Van Laar & Sidanius, 2001).
Other decision scenarios in the game require players to make trade-offs between money, bonuses, experience, and wellness. The range of decision options and severity of the consequences are impacted by each character’s membership in privileged or marginalized social groups. Consistent with principles of intersectionality (Robinson, 1999), consequences within the game have compounding positive effects for characters with multiple privileged identities and compounding negative effects for characters with multiple marginalized identities (see, e.g., Bramesfeld, 2015). These effects are cumulative across the course of the game (Bramesfeld, 2015; Bramesfeld & Good, 2015; Shields et al., 2011).
At multiple points in the game, collective decisions are also used to highlight the processes by which intersecting systems of privilege contribute to structural inequality. For example, in one of the collective decisions, students are given the opportunity to vote to determine which neighborhood will benefit from a wellness initiative. Students have to use two bonus credits to participate in the vote. Because only the most privileged characters have the bonus credits to spare and students tend to vote based on the self-interests of their own character, characters that are already in a position of privilege benefit at the expense of other characters in the game. The game and its outcomes are used to facilitate active class discussion about privilege and structural inequality.
Study 1
Overview and Hypotheses
To examine if C’est La Vie was associated with increased awareness of privilege and structural inequality, we conducted a single-group pretest/posttest study. After review by a Research Ethics Board (protocol #2014-075), we administered C’est La Vie to students enrolled in one of the two courses offered at large public university in Ontario: community psychology (ComPsyc, enrollment = 62) and social psychology (SocPsyc, enrollment = 115). Both of these courses were taught by the first author. To reduce perceptions of coercion, a colleague collected the informed consent forms and the pretest and posttest surveys were collected online. The surveys were not released for analysis until after the term ended. Students provided identifiers so that their pretest/posttest surveys could be connected. These identifiers were removed prior to analysis.
The pretest and posttest surveys included open-ended questions and rating scale items that we created to measure acknowledgment of privilege and structural inequality. We hypothesized that after playing C’est La Vie (posttest), as compared to before playing C’est La Vie (pretest), participants would be more likely to: Acknowledge personal sources of privilege, as evidenced by their (a) content coded acknowledgment of privileged and marginalized identities and (b) self-reported ratings of their own privilege relative to others. Express greater awareness of structural inequality, as evidenced by their (a) content coded reasons for why social problems occur and (b) their self-reported agreement with structural attributions for social problems.
Method
Participants
A total of 55 participants (22 from ComPsyc and 33 from SocPsyc) met the inclusion criterion of having consented to be in the study, completed a demographics and pretest questionnaire, attended class on the day of the intervention, and completed a posttest questionnaire. Demographic questions related to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, ability/disability, and social class were measured in broad categories at pretest only. In terms of race/ethnicity, 33 participants (60%) identified as White and 21 (38%) identified as a racial/ethnic minority, 1 participant did not answer. Twelve participants (22%) identified as male and 43 participants (78%) identified as female. Four participants (7%) identified as lesbian, gay, bisexual, or transgendered; 50 participants (91%) identified as heterosexual; and 1 participant did not answer. Ten participants (18%) indicated “yes” when asked if they had a physical, cognitive, mental, sensory, emotional, or developmental disability, or some combination of these; 40 participants (73%) indicated “no” to the same question; 5 participants did not answer this question. When asked to describe their circumstances growing up, 37 participants (67%) identified their family of origin as being wealthy or middle class, 17 participants (31%) identified their family of origin as working class or poor; and 1 participant did not answer this question.
Measures
Acknowledgment of privilege and structural inequality were measured at pretest and again at posttest using open-ended questions and rating scale items.
Privilege
Two open-ended questions instructed students to write about characteristics that may have (a) “given you an advantage in life, relative to others” and (b) “resulted in you experiencing disadvantages in your life, relative to others.” The first question (related to advantages) was used to code for the acknowledgment of privileged identities. Specifically, two independent raters coded whether participants explicitly acknowledged being White, male, heterosexual, without a disability, and wealthy or middle class as sources of advantage (see Table 1).
Study 1: Acknowledged Privilege and Marginalization Results.
Note. LGBQQT = lesbian, gay, bisexual, queer, questioning, and trans. The Demographics column identifies the total number of participants (out of N = 55) identifying with a particular demographic category within the demographics questionnaire. The Acknowledgment at pretest and at posttest columns for Privileged Identities list the total number of people within a given category that acknowledged a privileged identity as a source of advantage in their content coded open ended responses. The Acknowledgment at pretest and at posttest columns for Marginalized Identities list the total number of people within a given category that acknowledged a marginalized identity as a source of disadvantage in their content coded open-ended responses.
The second question (related to disadvantages) was used to code for acknowledgment of marginalized identities. Specifically, two independent raters coded whether participants explicitly acknowledged being a racial/ethnic minority, being female, identifying as lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered or transsexual, having a disability, or being working class/poor as sources of disadvantage (see Table 1). At the time of coding, the raters were unaware as to whether the responses came from the pretest or the posttest survey. The coders had good interrater reliability across the five categories of privilege (Cohen’s κ = .96) and across the five categories of marginalization (Cohen’s κ = .93). A third independent coder was used to resolve any disputes. The codes were used to tally the total number of privileged identities acknowledged at pretest versus at posttest, as well as the total number of marginalized identities acknowledged at pretest versus at posttest.
Six rating scale items created for this study also assessed the extent to which the participants perceived themselves as holding unearned privilege relative to others. Each item was assessed on its own unique 1–7 rating scale (e.g., “To what extent have the circumstances for which you were born [or had no control over] given you more [or less] privileges relative to other people?” [1 = I was born with far fewer privileges than others; 7 = I was born with far greater privileges than others]; “To what extent have the circumstances for which you were born [or had no control over] contributed to your current successes in life?” [1 = These factors explain none of my successes; 7 = These factors explain all of my successes]). The items were averaged together to create one composite (pretest, α = .63; posttest, α = .71).
Structural inequality
One open-ended question assessed participants’ beliefs about “the primary cause of the social problems that people in Canada face (including but not limited to, social problems, such as poverty, crime, homelessness, unemployment, substance abuse, stigma, and poor physical and mental health, etc.)”. A thematic analysis of the responses revealed three types of causes: (a) individualistic explanations, which focused on internal attributes of the person (e.g., “individuals lack discipline”), (b) interpersonal explanations, which focused on people’s social interactions or attitudes towards others (e.g., “people are greedy, selfish, and unfair,” “there is a lack of empathy”) and (c) structural explanations, which focused on social policies and systemic inequality (e.g., “we need to look at social policies”). Independent raters categorized each response as fitting into one of the three categories. In the event that a participant focused on more than one type of explanation, coders were instructed to code for whether the response was primarily individualistic, primarily interpersonal, or primarily structural in nature. Responses that could not be primarily categorized into one of these categories were coded as “other” (Cohen’s κ across the four categories = .72). A third independent coder was used to resolve any disputes. At the time of coding, the raters were unaware as to whether the responses came from the pretest or the posttest survey.
Four rating scale items created for this study also measured on a 1 (strongly disagree) to 7 (strongly agree) scale participants’ structural attributions for social problems (e.g., 1–7 scale; “People are punished by a social system that is designed to reward some people and punish others;” “People affected negatively by social problems have been wronged by society”). The items were averaged together to create one composite measure (pretest, α = .82; posttest, α = .84).
Results
Wilcoxon tests of signed rank difference were used to examine if the number of content coded categories of acknowledged privilege (totaled across five categories of privilege) and marginalization (totaled across the five categories of marginalization) differed at posttest relative to pretest. Table 1 summarizes these counts. Consistent with Hypothesis 1a, participants acknowledged significantly more categories of privilege at posttest relative to pretest, Z(N = 55) = 3.58, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 1.10. Likewise, participants acknowledged significantly more categories of marginalization at posttest relative to pretest, Z(N = 55) = 2.63, p = .009, Cohen’s d = 0.76.
We used χ2 goodness-of-fit tests to analyze the coded reasons for social problems. Specifically, the data were analyzed using a 4 (categories: individualistic, interpersonal, structural, or other)×2 (pretest versus posttest) contingency table: χ2(df = 3, N = 55) = 9.17, p = .03), Phi (ϕ) = .41. Having established an overall effect, individual χ2 analyses were used to examine the pretest/posttest pattern of responding for each category. Table 2 summarizes the results for each category. Consistent with Hypothesis 2a, participants were more likely to acknowledge structural inequality as a cause for social problems at posttest relative to at pretest. Participants were also less likely to acknowledge interpersonal reasons as the cause for social problems at posttest relative to pretest. There were no differences in the attributions for individualistic causes or for causes not categorized.
Study 1: Structural Attributions and Rating Scale Item Results.
Note. N = 55. Social attributions reflect students’ content coded reasons for why social problems occur. Students’ responses were coded into one of four categories: structural causes, interpersonal causes, individualistic causes, and causes not categorized.
Separate repeated measures analyses of variance (ANOVAs) were used to examine pretest/posttest differences in self-reported ratings of privilege acknowledgment, F(1, 54) = 6.63, p = .013, η2 = 0.11, and structural inequality, F(1, 54) = 4.08, p = .048, η2 = 0.07. Table 2 summarizes these results. Consistent with Hypothesis 1b, participants reported significantly higher self-reported privilege at posttest than at pretest. And, consistent with Hypothesis 2b, participants reported significantly higher awareness of structural inequality at posttest than at pretest.
Discussion
After playing C’est La Vie, as compared to before playing the game, participants acknowledged more sources of privilege (Hypothesis 1) and expressed greater awareness of structural inequality (Hypothesis 2). These results held whether we measured the outcomes based on students’ own open-ended responses or by examining the participants’ agreement to rating scale items. These results contribute to the construct validity of the findings. Still, Study 1 used a single-group, pretest/posttest design with a relatively small sample size. As such, the study was limited in its internal and external validity. In addition, while the open-ended questions allowed us to code for the acknowledgment of intersecting identities of privilege and marginalization, the rating scale measure of privilege did not directly address awareness of intersecting sources of privilege. To our knowledge, no prior scale exists to assess awareness of privilege from an intersectionality perspective. Indeed, the few measures of privilege awareness that do exist focus on single domains of privilege (e.g., race and sexual orientation, see Case, 2007; Case & Stewart, 2010). Study 2 was designed to address these limitations.
Study 2
Overview and Hypotheses
Study 2 involved a quasi-experimental pretest/posttest design with treatment and control groups. After review by a Research Ethics Board (protocol #2014-075), we collected data from three courses offered at a large public university in Ontario. The treatment group included participants from (a) an introduction to psychology II course taught by the first author (IntroTreatment, enrollment = 161) and (b) a media and culture course taught by an instructor not affiliated with the project (MediaTreatment, enrollment = 198). These students completed in-class pretest and posttest surveys immediately before and after playing C’est La Vie. The control group included students from another section of introduction to psychology II that was also taught by the first author (enrollment = 158). The control group completed the same in-class pretest/posttest surveys, but did so before and after being exposed to a traditional lecture-as-usual introductory lecture on social psychology, which included topics related to attitudes, conformity, obedience, attribution theory, and helping.
To reduce perceptions of coercion, the data were collected anonymously. To ensure that the anonymous survey responses could be linked together, sealed pretest and posttest surveys labeled with the same surveys labeled with the same survey identification (ID) number were distributed to students at the beginning of class. To facilitate the collection of follow-up data (explained later in this article), participants also created a unique participant ID containing the day of their birth (i.e., 01–31) and the last three digits of their phone number. The pretest and posttest surveys measured awareness of (a) intersecting sources of privilege and (b) personal privilege (IntroTreatment and control conditions only) and (c) structural inequality. The posttest survey also measured perceived effectiveness of the lesson (IntroTreatment and control conditions only). We hypothesized that:
Method
Participants
A total of 243 participants (69 from the IntroTreatment class, 110 from the MediaTreatment class, and 64 from the control class) completed both the pretest and posttest surveys. Table 3 presents the demographic information for these participants.
Study 2: Participant Demographic Information.
Note. Media (T) = MediaTreatment; Intro (T) = IntroTreatment; follow-up participants included a subset of participants from the original control condition. Some categories do not add up to 100% due to missing data. *An umbrella term which encompasses wide range of non-cisgendered identities, including (but not limited to) transsexual, transgender, genderqueer, genderfluid, genderless, and non-gendered individuals.
Measures
At pretest and at posttest, we measured awareness of intersecting sources of privilege, awareness of personal privilege (introduction to psychology II classes only), and acknowledgment of structural inequality. The items for each of these measures are listed in the Appendix. At posttest only, we measured perceived effectiveness of the task (introduction to psychology II classes only).
Intersectionality
Twelve items created for this study assessed on a 1 (entirely disagree) to 7 (entirely agree) scale participants’ agreement that individuals with White identities, male identities, heterosexual identities, the absence of a disability, and access to wealth have more opportunities and advantages than other social groups (e.g., “Men with a White identity, who are also heterosexual, nondisabled, and middle class/wealthy hold the greatest power within this country” (reverse coded). The 12 items were averaged together to create one composite score (T1, α = .88; T2, α = .89).
Personal privilege
For the IntroTreatment and control classes, 12 items created by the authors assessed on a 1 (entirely disagree) to 7 (entirely agree) scale participants’ personal acknowledgment of their own privilege. Seven items measured perceptions of overall personal privilege (e.g., “I have had to work less hard for the successes and opportunities available to me relative to people from different demographic groups”) and 5 items measured personal privilege due to race/ethnicity, gender, sexual orientation, lack of disability, and social class (e.g., “My sexual orientation grants me unearned privileges in today’s society”). The 12 items were averaged together to create one composite score (T1, α = .81; T2, α = .83).
Structural inequality
Four items created for this study measured on a 1 (entirely disagree) to 7 (entirely agree) scale participants’ agreement that structural inequality exists (e.g., “For the most part, people fail to succeed in life because existing laws and policies are set up to favor some groups of people more than others”). The items were averaged together to create one composite score (T1, α = .72; T2, α = .77).
Perceived effectiveness
At posttest, the IntroTreatment and control participants rated on a 1 (not at all) to 6 (very) scale the extent to which they found the lesson to be effective (e.g., Today’s class: was engaging, was effective in helping you learn, was thought provoking, was representative of the real world, helped you reflect on the lives of others, helped you reflect on your own life). The items were average together to create one composite measure (T2, α = .81).
Results and Discussion
Hypothesis 1: Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs)
To examine if C’est La Vie was associated with greater posttest awareness compared to the lecture-as-usual control condition, we conducted an ANCOVA for each of the three awareness variables: intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality. For each ANCOVA, we used the posttest score as the dependent variable, the condition (treatment versus control) as a between-subjects independent variable, and the pretest score as a covariate. The ANCOVA results were significant for all three awareness variables: (a) intersectionality, F(2, 239) = 7.45, p = .001, η2 = 0.06, (b) personal privilege, F(1, 129) = 15.88, p < .001, η2 = 0.11, and (c) structural inequality, F(2, 239) = 7.78, p = .001, η2 = 0.06. Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 4. In support of Hypothesis 1, when pretest scores were controlled for, participants in the treatment groups reported significantly higher posttest awareness of (a) intersectionality, (b) personal privilege, and (c) structural inequality than participants in the control condition. Thus, C’est La Vie resulted in greater awareness on intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality than the lecture-as-usual control condition.
Study 2: Results.
Note. The means presented for the awareness measures represent the adjusted posttest means, controlling for pretest scores. The treatment data for the awareness of intersectionality and structural inequality measures come from the MediaTreatment and IntroTreatment courses (N = 179). The treatment data for the personal privilege and perceived effectiveness measures come from the IntroTreatment course (N = 68).
Hypothesis 2: Perceived Effectiveness
To test Hypothesis 2, we used an ANOVA with condition (IntroTreatment versus Control) as a between-subjects independent variable and perceived effectiveness as the dependent variable, F(1, 129) = 5.80, p = .017, η2 = 0.04. Descriptive statistics are reported in Table 4. Consistent with Hypothesis 2, IntroTreatment participants perceived C’est La Vie to be more effective than the control participants perceived the lecture-as-usual.
Study 2 Follow-Up
Overview and Methods
To further examine the effectiveness of C’est La Vie, we conducted a follow-up analysis with a subset of the control group participants. Specifically, 1 week after the control group participants were exposed to the lecture-as-usual, students were given the opportunity to play C’est La Vie during class time. After playing the game in class, students completed a third assessment of the outcome measures. Using the five-digit Participant ID described in the Overview of Study 2, we were able to connect the original pretest/posttest data to the follow-up data for 27 of the original participants. The follow-up participants did not differ significantly from the original sample in their demographic makeup or in their original pretest/posttest ratings of the outcome variables, p’s > .24 (see Table 3 for demographic information).
The data from these follow-up participants allowed us to use a within-subjects design to compare scores across the three time points. We hypothesized that participants would report greater awareness of intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality after playing C’est La Vie (Time 3) as compared to baseline pretest measures (Time 1) and exposure to the lecture-as-usual (Time 2). We also hypothesized that follow-up participants would perceive C’est La Vie to be a more effective learning tool than the lecture-as-usual.
Results
To test these hypotheses, we conducted three repeated measures ANOVAs, one for each of the awareness measures (intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality). In each analysis, scores at Time 1 (T1), Time (T2), and Time (T3) were used as a within-subjects variable. Significant main effects emerged for all three awareness variables: intersectionality, F(2, 52) = 7.58, p = .001, η2 = 0.23; personal privilege, F(2, 52) = 15.23, p < .001, η2 = 0.37; and structural inequality, F(2, 52) = 4.50, p = .016, η2 = 0.15. Post hoc analyses were used to compare the awareness scores after playing C’est La Vie (T3) to the baseline pretest measures (T1) and to the measures collected after the lecture-as-usual (T2). As reported in Table 5, participants reported significantly higher awareness of intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality after playing C’est La Vie, as compared to either the baseline pretest measures or the lecture-as-usual. A paired samples t-test established that participants perceived C’est La Vie to be more effective than the lecture-as-usual, t(26) = 4.68, p < .001, Cohen’s d = 0.90 (see Table 5).
Study 2: Follow-Up Analysis.
Note. N = 27. T3 versus T1 comparisons represent the within-subject comparison between the C’est La Vie treatment and pretest measurements. T3 versus T2 comparisons represent the within-subject comparison between the C’est La Vie treatment and the lecture-as-usual control.
General Discussion
C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life is an experiential simulation activity designed to facilitate discussions about intersectionality, privilege, and structural inequality. To play the game, students receive a character profile that describes their character’s race/ethnicity, citizenship status, ability to vote, gender, sexual orientation, presence or absence of a disability, starting money credits (to represent wealth), and starting bonus credits (to represent privilege). Students then use their character’s resources to navigate a strategy game designed to highlight how differing social identities intersect within systems of structural inequality to influence education, wellness, and success (see Bramesfeld, 2015). The purpose of the current article was to empirically assess the effectiveness of this experiential simulation activity.
In Study 1 (N = 55), we content analyzed social psychology and community psychology students’ short answer reflections about inequality written before and after playing C’est La Vie. The results revealed that after playing C’est La Vie, as compared to before playing the game, participants (a) acknowledged more categories of privileged and marginalized identities, (b) rated themselves as having more privilege relative to others, (c) focused more on structural causes for social problems, and (d) reported higher agreement with the existence of structural inequality. The internal and external validity of these results were limited, however, by the single-group pretest/posttest design and the relatively small sample size. Study 2 addressed these limitations using a pretest/posttest quasi-experimental design with treatment and control groups.
In Study 2, students from a media and culture course and an introduction to psychology II course served as a treatment group (N = 179). Students from another Introduction to Psychology II course served as a lecture-as-usual control group (N = 64). When controlling for pretest differences in awareness, participants in the C’est La Vie treatment condition reported significantly higher levels of awareness of intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality than participants in the lecture-as-usual control group. In a follow-up analysis (N = 27), control group participants played C’est La Vie 1 week after being exposed to the lecture-as-usual. The follow-up participants reported significantly higher awareness of intersectionality, personal privilege, and structural inequality after playing C’est La Vie as compared to baseline pretest measures or when they were exposed to the lecture-as-usual. In both the between-group analysis (original study) and the within-group analysis (follow-up study), participants rated C’est La Vie as being a more effective educational tool than the lecture-as-usual.
Combined, the results of the two studies support the premise that C’est La Vie is an effective educational tool for teaching about intersectionality, privilege, and structural inequality. One likely reason that C’est La Vie succeeded in engaging students was its focus on intersecting identities. Indeed, most university students have at least one source of privilege in their lives (Ferber & Herrera, 2013). Activities that adopt an intersectionality perspective serve to draw more students into the conversation (Carreiro & Kapitulik, 2010; Ferber & Herrera, 2013; Platt, 2013). It is likely that the experiential simulation components of C’est La Vie also contributed to the positive outcomes. Simulation activities allow students the opportunity to externalize their emotional reactions onto the activity before engaging in self-reflection about the role of privilege in one’s own life (Patrick & Connolly, 2013). As a consequence, simulation activities can be effective at reducing defensive reactions (Simpson & Elias, 2011) and demonstrating larger scale patterns (Bramesfeld & Good, 2015; Shields et al., 2011). These factors may be particularly important when teaching about diversity (Case, 2013). Indeed, as one student wrote in response to playing C’est La Vie, “Most of the time when presented with a social issue, a person gets told to put themselves in that position and try to think about how they would feel if they were the disadvantaged person. This is usually a hard thing to do because you can’t force yourself to think and feel like someone else on cue. By making us invest our thought process and decision making skills in this fictional character’s life, we were able to actually become emotionally connected with them as well” (Social psychology student, Study 1).
Of course, one must use caution in interpreting the findings of the current studies. Given the moderate participation rates across the two studies (representing 31–56% of the students enrolled in each course), it is likely that these data overrepresented students who were generally more engaged in their classes or who found the game to be most beneficial. This could limit the generalizability of the findings. Still, the authors of the paper can anecdotally add that across the five courses, the majority of the students appeared to be very engaged during the class activity and discussion. Indeed, in over 10 years of teaching, the first author has rarely seen a group of students become so engaged in a discussion related to privilege and structural inequality, especially in such large lecture settings. Thus, even if the effects of playing C’est Vie are limited to a select group of students, using the simulation activity to engage students in these conversations is likely to be worth it in the long term. After all, as Platt (2013, p. 219) argues, “even if only a few students experience growth through learning about privilege, instructors must acknowledge these successes. The societal change that even one student could produce may not be something immediately tangible or visible but could still have a lasting impact (Enns & Sinacore, 2005).”
The current studies suggest that C’est La Vie can motivate important learning processes that significantly impact students. Indeed, across two studies, representing five different courses, C’est La Vie: The Game of Social Life was associated with a greater awareness of intersecting sources of privilege and an increased acknowledgment of structural inequality. Importantly, students perceived C’est La Vie to be an effective and engaging learning tool. Given that students often react defensively to discussions of privilege (Platt, 2013; Watt, 2007; Wise & Case, 2013), these finding are particularly important, as they suggest that C’est La Vie may be an effective tool for engaging students in productive and meaningful discussions of intersectionality, privilege, and structural inequality.
Footnotes
Appendix
All items were rated by participants using the following 7-point scale.
Declaration of Conflicting Interests
The authors declared no potential conflicts of interest with respect to the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article.
Funding
The authors disclosed receipt of the following financial support for the research, authorship, and/or publication of this article: This research was supported by grants from the Teaching about Diversity Fund through Ryerson University’s Learning and Teaching Office. Parts of Study 1 were presented at the 2015 National Multicultural Conference and Summit, Atlanta, GA. We would like to thank the research assistants who contributed to the content analysis for Study 1 (listed alphabetically): Omar Abou El Hassan, Mishka Blacker, Samantha Burns, Amanda Donato, Andres Hernandez, Cierra James-Hahn, Usra Leedham, Adrienne Mehak, Mahdiyeh Meratian, Anthony Miller, Amanda Reilly, and Simona Sklenarova. We would also like to thank Lisa Platt for her feedback on earlier drafts of the manuscript.