Racial equity in social psychological science: A guide for scholars, institutions, and the field

How can social psychologists ensure their scholarship does not maintain racial inequality—or better, is anti-racist? This article serves as a reference for scholars by briefly reviewing the state of racial inequality in psychological science before providing concise yet comprehensive recommendations. Challenges include (a) the field's historic role in inequality-maintenance (especially by reinforcing harmful stereotypes), (b) pervasive objectivity norms that reify Whiteness as the status quo, and (c) the inequitable allocation of resources to White scholars and White-centered scholarship. Recommendations center on (a) methodological practices during the research process (from idea generation to manuscript preparation), (b) empirical transparency from scholars during the publication process, and (c) institutional, resource-focused support from gatekeepers (e.g., editors, senior faculty) to incentivize the diversification of our science

Investigating Hair Cues as a Mechanism Underlying Black Women’s Intersectional Invisibility

Children psychologically exclude Black women from their representations of women, but the mechanisms underlying this marginalization remain unclear. Across two studies (N = 129; 49 boys, 78 girls, two gender unreported; 79 White, 27 Black, six Latinx, five Asian, and 12 unreported), the present work tests hair texture as one possible perceptual mechanism by which this might occur. In both studies, children gender-categorized Black, White, and Asian men and women using MouseTracker. Children were slower and had more complex patterns in categorizing Black women when they had textured hair (Study 1A), but not when they had straight hair (Study 1B). Implications for the development of gender as a social category are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved)

The connections between personality, ideology and (counter‐)empathic emotions depend on the target

ObjectivesExamine the group-specific connections between personality, ideology, and the moral emotions of empathy and schadenfreude.BackgroundEmpathy and schadenfreude are emotions that often lead to moral prosocial or spiteful harmful behaviors respectively. An outstanding question is what motivates feelings of empathy and schadenfreude towards people from different groups. Here we examine two prominent motivators of emotions: personality traits and ideology. Previous work has found that people's ideological orientations towards respecting traditionalism (RWA) and preferences about group-based hierarchy (SDO) can impact intergroup emotions. Further, personality traits of low agreeableness, low openness, and high conscientiousness uniquely engender SDO and RWA.MethodIn the research presented here (Study 1 n = 492; Study 2 n = 786), we examine the relationships between personality traits, ideology, and emotions for groups that are perceived to be dangerous and competitive. We hypothesize that SDO and RWA will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude but towards unique groups. SDO will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude towards competitive, low-status groups while RWA will relate to reduced empathy and increased schadenfreude towards threatening groups. We further extend past work by investigating left-wing authoritarianism as well.ResultsWe find broad support for our expectation that the relationships between personality and emotions, as well as ideology and emotions, depend on the specific group in question.ConclusionsThese results help expand the dual process motivational model of prejudice and suggest the importance of specifying a target group when assessing relationships between personality, ideology, and emotions

A synthesis of evidence for policy from behavioural science during COVID-19

Scientific evidence regularly guides policy decisions, with behavioural science increasingly part of this process. In April 2020, an influential paper proposed 19 policy recommendations (‘claims’) detailing how evidence from behavioural science could contribute to efforts to reduce impacts and end the COVID-19 pandemic. Here we assess 747 pandemic-related research articles that empirically investigated those claims. We report the scale of evidence and whether evidence supports them to indicate applicability for policymaking. Two independent teams, involving 72 reviewers, found evidence for 18 of 19 claims, with both teams finding evidence supporting 16 (89%) of those 18 claims. The strongest evidence supported claims that anticipated culture, polarization and misinformation would be associated with policy effectiveness. Claims suggesting trusted leaders and positive social norms increased adherence to behavioural interventions also had strong empirical support, as did appealing to social consensus or bipartisan agreement. Targeted language in messaging yielded mixed effects and there were no effects for highlighting individual benefits or protecting others. No available evidence existed to assess any distinct differences in effects between using the terms ‘physical distancing’ and ‘social distancing’. Analysis of 463 papers containing data showed generally large samples; 418 involved human participants with a mean of 16,848 (median of 1,699). That statistical power underscored improved suitability of behavioural science research for informing policy decisions. Furthermore, by implementing a standardized approach to evidence selection and synthesis, we amplify broader implications for advancing scientific evidence in policy formulation and prioritization