Search

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Four studies reveal that offering diversity awards (i.e., awards for applicants from marginalized groups) has unintentionally negative implications for equity. Across the four studies, applicants from marginalized groups were more likely to select the more lucrative award when two unrestricted awards were offered (Study 1: adults from racial groups underrepresented in U.S. colleges who were recruited from Amazon Mechanical Turk, N = 168; Studies 2-4: college women, N range = 152-628). However, the presence of a less lucrative diversity award caused applicants to apply for and prioritize diversity awards over more lucrative unrestricted awards. Fit, or how much applicants felt the award was for someone like them, mediated their increased likelihood of applying for diversity awards over unrestricted awards. These findings suggest that diversity awards may inadvertently siphon applicants from marginalized groups out of application pools for unrestricted awards. Greater examination of unrestricted awards is needed to increase their attractiveness and fit, especially in instances when diversity awards are also offered.

Can being overweight, a factor that commonly leads to stigmatization, ironically buffer some people from race-based assumptions about who is American? In 10 studies, participants were shown portraits that were edited to make the photographed person appear either overweight (body mass index, or BMI > 25) or normal weight (BMI < 25). A meta-analysis of these studies revealed that overweight Asian individuals were perceived as significantly more American than normal-weight versions of the same people, whereas this was not true for White, Black, or Latino individuals. A second meta-analysis showed that overweight Asian men were perceived as less likely to be in the United States without documentation than their normal-weight counterparts. A final study demonstrated that weight stereotypes about presumed countries of origin shape who is considered American. Taken together, these studies demonstrate that perceptions of nationality are malleable and that perceived race and body shape interact to inform these judgments.

Stereotypes and their associated category-based processes have traditionally been considered largely within the context of the negativity of their content and consequences, both among the general public and the scientific community. This review summarizes and integrates extant research on positive stereotypes, which are subjectively favorable beliefs about social groups, and examines their implications for individuals and groups directly targeted by such stereotypes. Furthermore, we examine the beneficial and adverse implications of positive stereotypes for interpersonal and intergroup relations, as well as the ways in which positive stereotypes, more so than negative stereotypes, may contribute to and perpetuate systemic differences in power and privilege., (© The Author(s) 2015.)

In two experiments, we tested the hypothesis that pressure felt by U.S. immigrant groups to prove they belong in America causes them to consume more prototypically American, and consequently less healthy, foods. Asian Americans were three times more likely to report a prototypically American food as their favorite after being asked whether they spoke English than when they had not been asked; in contrast, questioning the English abilities of White Americans had no effect on their reports (Experiment 1). Also, Asian Americans ordered and ate dishes that were more American and contained an average of 182 additional calories and 12 extra grams of fat when their American identity was directly challenged than when their American identity was not challenged (Experiment 2). Identity-based psychological processes may help explain why the diets of U.S. immigrant groups tend to decline in nutritional value with longer residence in the United States and over generations.

Asian-American women's performance on a test of quantitative skill was studied as a function of whether their Asian, female, or individual identity was salient at the time of testing. In previous research, ethnicity salience was found to result in enhanced math performance among Asian women. However, the investigators relied on a subtle manipulation of ethnicity salience that likely did not invoke concerns about group reputation nor make salient the common cultural stereotypes concerning Asians' mathematical prowess. We induced a focus on ethnic identity in a manner that was likely to make other people's high performance expectations more salient. Under these conditions, ethnicity salience resulted in diminished ability to concentrate, which in turn led to significantly impaired math performance. Thus, although people commonly hold positive stereotypes about Asians' mathematical skills, making these stereotypes salient prior to performance can create the potential for "choking" under the pressure of high expectations.