By Crystal Hall
“I knew quite well that equal justice was an aspiration. I knew that the force of the law was applied unevenly, sometimes by design. But I also knew that what was wrong with the system didn’t need to be an immutable fact. And I wanted to be part of changing that.”
Kamala Harris wrote these words to explain her decision to pursue a career in prosecution, despite the longstanding inequities within the U.S. criminal legal system. Now, as she approaches the final stretch of the 2024 presidential campaign, Vice President Harris finds both her words and professional record under a new microscope. Since taking the Democratic nomination, she has faced heightened scrutiny, as her opponents amplify identity politics to challenge both her professional record and President Biden’s administration.
As the first woman of color to lead a major U.S. party’s presidential ticket, Harris’s candidacy itself represents a significant first. But it’s more than just a symbolic achievement: the way she engages with discussions of race and public policy reveals a deeply nuanced perspective, one that acknowledges both the flaws in our institutions and the potential for change. This acknowledgment – recognizing but not succumbing to an imperfect system – is something we could all learn from.
For the behavioral science community, Harris’s perspective on a complex system like the criminal legal system offers a valuable lens. Many of us in this field approach social issues as if they were isolated puzzles, solvable by focusing on individual behavior. However, a quote like Harris’s relates to a larger truth about human behavior and change: individual actions are often tightly interwoven with larger, structural forces, like institutional racism. To truly understand and influence behavior, behavioral scientists must consider these systemic forces.
A Behavioral Science Perspective on Structural Inequities
For applied behavioral scientists and behavioral economists, confronting the reality of systemic racism can feel daunting, or even outside our purview. Historically, behavioral science has focused on individual actions, aiming to “nudge” people toward healthier, more sustainable, or more socially beneficial choices. This approach can be powerful, but it often assumes that individual choice exists in a vacuum, unaffected by broader social, political, and economic forces.
In reality, people’s choices are often shaped by the systems they inhabit. Ignoring this leads to missed opportunities – both in designing interventions that could more effectively change behavior and in making the field itself more inclusive and equitable. This is the central argument of Antiracist by Design: Reimagining Applied Behavioral Science, the forthcoming book that I co-authored with my colleague and friend Mindy Hernandez. We aim to shed light on the role of structural racism within applied behavioral science and to offer a roadmap for change.
Our book examines the history of the field and highlights a path forward, one in which behavioral science practices and norms are revised to incorporate systemic perspectives and insights. Together, we have spent decades applying behavioral science principles to real-world challenges, but we see that the field’s tendency to focus narrowly on the individual has sometimes limited its effectiveness, particularly in areas where structural inequities significantly shape behavior.
Learning from Others in the Field
Encouragingly, some researchers are already taking a more systemic approach. A recent paper by Joel Le Forestier and Neil Lewis, Jr., for instance, explores how identity concealment patterns are tied not only to individual characteristics but also to broader systemic environments. Their work shows that people’s tendencies to hide stigmatized identities – be they related to race, sexuality, or other aspects of identity – are deeply influenced by the context they inhabit.
For example, someone with a marginalized identity might be more likely to hide aspects of themselves if they’re in an unwelcoming or even hostile environment. This speaks directly to applied behavioral science: it’s not just about helping individuals cope but also about creating environments where people can safely be themselves. If behavioral scientists ignore these contextual factors, they risk creating interventions that only benefit those who already feel secure in their environment, rather than those who might need them most.
In practice, this could mean rethinking how and where we apply certain interventions. For instance, nudges that encourage people to seek mental health support might be far less effective if they’re targeted at communities that face systemic barriers to accessing care or that mistrust healthcare providers due to historical discrimination. A broader approach that addresses these structural factors – perhaps by advocating for policy changes or by working within community organizations – could make interventions far more impactful.
Redesigning Behavioral Science for a More Equitable Future
As Harris’s career illustrates, change within flawed systems is challenging, but it is possible. Her approach should resonate with us as behavioral scientists because it mirrors the complexity of influencing behavior on a large scale. Her acknowledgment of the justice system’s flaws while still committing to work within it reflects a balanced view: one that sees the potential for growth even in systems that have historically caused harm.
In Antiracist by Design, we outline practical steps behavioral scientists can take to work within systems while also pushing for structural change. For example, one of the first steps is to conduct a systems analysis for any intervention. Instead of viewing an individual as an isolated actor, this analysis would encourage practitioners to map out the system surrounding that person, identifying factors that might constrain or influence their choices. This perspective doesn’t just improve the relevance of interventions; it also helps prevent unintended consequences that could reinforce existing inequities.
Furthermore, we advocate for the use of participatory methods, bringing communities into the research and design process to ensure that interventions align with their lived experiences and needs. Engaging with communities in this way not only strengthens the efficacy of behavioral interventions but also builds trust and bridges divides that have historically marginalized certain groups within behavioral research.
A Call to Action for the Field
As we work to broaden the scope of behavioral science, we must ask ourselves: who benefits from our interventions, and who might be left behind? Are we unintentionally reinforcing systems of privilege, or are we designing interventions that truly address the needs of diverse communities?
Reflecting on Vice President Harris’s career and her acknowledgment of the justice system’s imperfections, we see a model for change that combines practical action with systemic awareness. Harris’s words remind us that systemic inequities are not immutable; they can change, but only if we are willing to confront them head-on.
For those of us in behavioral science, the call to action is clear. If we want to reach our field’s full potential – and to make a real difference in the world – we must do more than simply nudge individuals. We must look critically at the systems that shape their choices and work to redesign them with an antiracist, equitable lens.
This article was edited by Shaye-Ann Hopkins.
