Search

While skin color is relevant and important in the Latinx community, as it is associated with colorism, little is known about how often it is measured or the best way to measure it. This article presents results from two studies examining these key concerns in three prominent journals, where Latinx research is typically published (i.e., the "Hispanic Journal of Behavioral Sciences," the "Journal of Latinx Psychology," and "Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology"). Study one examined whether skin color was measured as a variable, and if so, what measures and methodologies were used. A review of articles (n = 1,137) showed few studies measured skin color in these three journals, with studies that did so relying on various approaches. Study two aimed to assess the reliability of a widely used skin color measure, the Massey-Martin scale, also known as the New Immigrant Survey (NIS) Skin Scale. Using a sample of 169 undergraduate students, self-ratings, coder ratings, and in vivo ratings were obtained and compared. One-way random effects model analyses indicated excellent reliability with minimal variability across the various ratings. Our findings suggest a critical need to engage in a more concerted effort to assess and discuss the relevance and importance of skin color within the Latinx community. The authors offer some suggestions on how to facilitate these efforts in clinical, training, and research arenas.

AimsTo understand processes placing individuals at risk for stimulant (amphetamine and cocaine) use disorder.DesignLongitudinal study.SettingUniversity of California, San Diego Department of Psychiatry, CA, USA.ParticipantsOccasional stimulant users (OSU; n = 184) underwent a baseline clinical interview and a functional magnetic resonance imaging (fMRI) session. On the basis of a follow-up clinical interview completed 3 years later, OSU (n = 147) were then categorized as problem stimulant users (PSU: n = 36; those who developed stimulant use disorders in the interim) or desisted stimulant users (DSU: n = 74; those who stopped using). OSU who did not meet criteria for PSU or DSU (n = 37) were included in dimensional analyses.MeasurementsfMRI blood oxygen level-dependent (BOLD) contrast percentage signal change from baseline collected during a Paper-Scissors-Rock task was examined during three decision-making conditions, those resulting in: (1) wins, (2) ties and (3) losses. These data were used as dependent variables in categorical analyses comparing PSU and DSU, as well as dimensional analyses including interim drug use as predictors, controlling for baseline drug use.FindingsPSU exhibited lower anterior cingulate, middle insula, superior temporal, inferior parietal, precuneus and cerebellum activation than DSU across all three conditions (significant brain clusters required > 19 neighboring voxels to exceed F(1,108)  = 5.58, P  0.83). Higher interim marijuana use was linked to lower pre-central and superior temporal activation during choices resulting in wins (> 19 neighboring voxels to exceed t = 2.61, P  0.11).ConclusionsIndividuals who transition from stimulant use to stimulant use disorder appear to show alterations in neural processing of stimulus valuation and outcome monitoring, patterns also evident in chronic stimulant use disorder. Attenuated anterior cingulate and insular processing may constitute a high-risk neural processing profile, which could be used to calculate risk scores for individuals experimenting with stimulants.

The open science framework has garnered increased visibility and has been partially implemented in recent years. Open science underscores the importance of transparency and reproducibility to conduct rigorous science. Recently, several journals published by the American Psychological Association have begun adopting the open science framework. At the same time, the field of psychology has been reckoning with the current sociopolitical climate regarding anti-Blackness and White supremacy. As psychology begins to adopt the open science framework into its journals, the authors underscore the importance of embracing and aligning open science with frameworks and theories that have the potential to move the field toward antiracism and away from the embedded White supremacy value systems and ideals. The present article provides an overview of the open science framework; an examination of White supremacy ideology in research and publishing; guidance on how to move away from these pernicious values; and a proposal on alternate value systems to center equity, diversity, and inclusion with the aim of establishing an antiracist open science framework. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]