The following is an excerpt of the intervention methodology. For more information, please see the full text of the article on the publisher's website or through your institution's library.

Study 1

esearchers put participants alone in a room with a laptop and instructed them to interact in a chat with another student (actually a confederate) on the course management system for about 20 min and exit the room when the conversation was over. [...] 

Before beginning the chat, participants were given a rough outline of mundane topics for discussion: introductions, family background, where they were from, if they knew anyone at the university before attending, major, favorite class, student organizations, campus atmosphere, and if any courses use the chat function. The confederate used a prewritten script, developed by student researchers, with believable phrasing, spelling, and shorthand often used online by students while allowing for responses to the participant's conversation to support natural flow of conversation.

About halfway through the discussion, the confederate presented two biased comments. For the study with derogatory comments about Mexican Americans, the first comment was as follows: “did you know there is a club for sp*cs? why is there even one on campus? i dont see this campus allowing a club for whites only!!” The confederate waited about 60 s to see if the participant would react to the biased comments and then went on with the conversation. Later in the chat, the second comment appeared: “there are too many damn w*tbacks!! me and my family aren't from here but at least we speak english… it just gets on my nerves.” Again, the confederate allowed time for the participant to respond before discussing the next assigned topic.

The procedure to examine reactions to the antigay comments was similar; again about halfway through the discussion, the confederate presented two biased comments. The first comment was as follows: “in terms of student groups- i havent really paid much attention. but did you know there is a club for qu**rs? why is there even one on campus? i dont see this campus allowing a club for straight people only!!”

The confederate waited about 60 s to see if the participant would react to the biased comments and then went on with the conversation. Later in the chat, the second comment appeared: “moving on to uhcl campus- i like it but there are too many damn f*gs!! me and my boyfriend dont put our sexuality in everyones faces like that… it just gets on my nerves.” Again, the confederate allowed time for the participant to respond before discussing the next assigned topic.[...] 

Coding responses to bias
Chat responses were coded as follows: no confrontation; confronted prejudice. If the participant confronted the comment, the response was additionally coded as subtle challenge or direct challenge. [...] 

Study 2
In Study 2, privileged participants encountered one biased comment targeting Arab individuals (n = 75 White participants) or transgender individuals (n = 87 cisgender heterosexual participants) within an online discussion with two confederates. The first confederate played the role of biased chat partner. A second confederate either confronted the prejudice or remained silent, thus providing the experimental social influence variable.[...] 

Social influence
Participants were told the study investigated age differences in use of chat rooms. In the lab, the participant joined in an online chat room (using Chatzy platform) where two other individuals (confederates) were already in mid-conversation. Scripts for each of the two confederates were developed by students to include believable phrasing and spelling, and shorthand used online by students. Discussion topics covered current employment, university student status, where they lived (e.g., Boston, Atlanta), weather, travel, sports, and more. In the anti-Arab study when the topic turned to travel, the first confederate provided the blatantly biased statement about Arab people: “I use to like traveling but the airports allow too many damn terrorists on the plane. u know every time i see an Arab i dont wanna step foot on that plane cuz im afraid it will blow up.” After allowing time for the participant to respond to the bias first, the second confederate served as the social influence variable by either stating disagreement with the biased comment or remaining silent and moving the chat to another topic. In the condition where the ally behavior confederate confronts the prejudice, he (always male) stated, “whatever dude, just becuz their arab dont make them frickin terrorists.” In the antitransgender study when the topic turned to looking for a birthday present for a girlfriend, the first confederate provided the blatantly biased statement about transgender people: “beware of the mall, dude the other day when I was there I saw this he..she..it..freak going into the girls bathroom! tr*nnies are the worst! i mean, why should heshe freaks use public restrooms if they cant even figure out what they want to be? nature says- if youre a guy or a girl. penis = guy, end of story.”

After allowing time for the participant to respond to the bias first, the second confederate served as the social influence variable by either stating disagreement with the biased comment or remaining silent and moving the chat to another topic. In the condition where the ally behavior confederate confronts the prejudice, he (always male) states, “whatever dude, just because theyre transsexual dont mean they should be banned from public places.”

Once the chat conversation ended, the researcher provided a survey with questions related to chat room use and age to support the cover story. Participants were debriefed after all data collection was complete.