Exercise #39
Who Gets the Apartment?
Authors: Dr hab. Małgorzata Szkup
30–60 minutes
Description
A values-clarification exercise in which students act as apartment owners and choose among four candidates from socially excluded or stigmatised groups. Through individual choice and group discussion, students uncover how stereotypes and unconscious biases shape everyday decisions — with direct relevance to clinical interactions with diverse patients.
Methodological Guide
Objectives
Raise students' awareness that everyday decisions – such as choosing a tenant – may be shaped by stereotypes and biases. Develop critical reflection skills regarding their own choices and the criteria they consider important. Understand the mechanisms of social exclusion and their impact on the lives of people from minority groups. Foster openness and empathy toward individuals belonging to stigmatized or marginalized groups. Practice dialogue and argumentation skills – justifying decisions and confronting them with other perspectives in a group setting.
Expected Outcomes
After completing the exercise, students should be able to: Recognize how stereotypes and unconscious biases may influence everyday decisions. Reflect critically on their own decision-making processes and underlying assumptions. Demonstrate greater openness and empathy toward individuals from socially excluded or stigmatized groups. Apply insights from the exercise to professional interactions with patients from diverse cultural and social backgrounds. Engage in constructive dialogue, justifying their choices and considering alternative perspectives.
Exercise Procedure
Introduction (2–3 min): Explain that students will imagine owning an apartment and choosing among four candidates, each belonging to a group often at risk of social exclusion. Individual part (2–3 min): Students read the candidate profiles and record their choice and reasoning. Group discussion (5–8 min per group × 4 groups): Groups justify their choices; facilitator listens for stereotypical language. Whole-group discussion (10–12 min): Facilitator leads discussion on stereotypical descriptions and their origins. Summary (15 min): Referencing the presentation, explain when stereotypes are most likely to surface. Final reflection: Students respond to the reflection question.
Mode of Implementation
Stage 1 – Individual (making a choice). Stage 2 – Group (discussion). Stage 3 – Teacher (Facilitator's summary).
Role of the Teacher
The most important role: attentive observer! Guide and moderator – facilitates the exercise without judging students' decisions, focusing instead on stimulating reflection and discussion. Provoker of reflection – asks questions that uncover hidden assumptions and challenge students to think critically about their choices. Group facilitator – ensures an atmosphere of safety, trust, and respect, encouraging all students to share their perspectives. Connector to practice – helps students link insights from the exercise to real-life clinical contexts and intercultural interactions with patients.
Theoretical Basis
The exercise is based on the principles of transformative learning: Disorienting dilemma (students confront assumptions about tenant choice), Critical reflection (analyzing decision-making and implicit biases), and Dialogue and action (group comparison of choices fosters discussion about diversity, fairness, and inclusion).
Practical Application
Fosters awareness in professional practice: recognizing how implicit attitudes may affect collaboration with colleagues, clients, or patients. Improved communication: understanding how judgments based on stereotypes can create barriers and hinder trust-building. Ethical sensitivity: appreciating the importance of fairness, inclusion, and equity in decision-making processes. Transfer to real-life contexts: preparing students to critically assess their own reasoning when making decisions that impact others, especially individuals from marginalized groups.
Knowledge Transfer
The exercise helps students realize how cultural background and unconscious assumptions shape everyday decisions. Students recognize the role of stereotypes and begin questioning the neutrality of their own judgments. Insights can be applied in professional contexts involving diverse individuals. Group comparison and discussion strengthen critical awareness and foster cultural humility for future interactions.
Reinforcement & Reflection
Students are encouraged to reflect on their own decision-making process as part of developing cultural competence. Keeping a reflective journal helps them track personal insights, e.g.: 'What influenced my choice today, and what does it reveal about my assumptions?' This self-reflection supports long-term growth by making students more mindful of hidden biases and more consistent in practicing fairness and openness.
Required Resources
Electronic devices such as tablets, smartphones, or laptops that enable access to the MultiCultiMed platform. An internet connection to access the exercise on the platform. A room spacious enough to allow movement and to gather in 4 groups.
Assessment / Evaluation
A written reflective entry; observation of group interaction and argumentation; ability to link insights to real clinical scenarios.
Practical Tips
Remember not to intervene too much during the first part of the discussion. Listen very carefully instead, and make note of any statements that reflect stereotypes. These comments will most often come from students who chose a different apartment candidate than the group currently explaining their decision. Stay alert!
Discussion Topics
Why did you choose this person? What made this candidate more convincing or attractive to you than the others? Which qualities or pieces of information were most important in your decision? Did anything make you hesitate before choosing? If you had to explain your choice to someone else, what would you emphasize? How do my own assumptions influence the way I evaluate others — and how might this affect patient relationships in my future practice?
Further Resources
Lausi, G. et al. (2024). How cognitive processes shape implicit stereotypes. Open Research Europe, 4, Article 263. | Ranganathan, A. (2025). Causal factors of implicit stereotypes. SSRN Electronic Journal. | Schmader T, Dennehy TC, Baron AS. Why Antibias Interventions (Need Not) Fail. Perspect Psychol Sci. 2022;17(5):1381-1403. | Brescoll, V., & Uhlmann, E. (2024). Gender heuristics. Political Psychology. | Cheon, H., & Yip, T. (2023). Social dominance orientation. Frontiers in Psychology, 14, 1124781. | Hung, T. W. (2023). Why Human Prejudice is so Persistent. Social Epistemology, 37(6), 779–797.
Additional Remarks
This exercise has no correct answer by design. The four candidates (Pierre, Olivia, Nadia, Borys) are drawn from groups often subject to social exclusion and stigmatisation. The pedagogical intent is to surface implicit biases through the contrast between individual private choice and public group justification. Converted from text_submission (2 textareas, show_others_submissions=true, anonymous=false) to reflection_wall (2 anonymous prompts + peer wall + reactions) on 2026-04-22 per the text-submission regame plan. Anonymity flipped to true so the bias-reflection prompt ('what influenced your choice you'd rather not admit?') actually invites honest disclosure. The rich 4-applicant card grid was migrated from config.prompt (text_submission-only) into instructions, preserving the visual layout the PRD designed.