Search

In this non-empirical article, which is intended as a decision-making resource for researchers, we identify issues surrounding data integrity that commonly arise in online survey research and we propose remediation strategies based on challenges we encountered during a particular pilot study as well as our collective experience with conducting online survey research. Using the metaphor of an onion, we peel off the layers of this complex problem, synthesize the various available strategies used across disciplines, and propose some novel ones based on our perspective as psychologists. Corresponding to this multi-layered problem, we propose multi-layered solutions to prevent illegitimate responding—by both humans and non-humans (robots or “bots” for short)—from compromising the quality of data collected via online survey research. The first layer entails strategic item selection and protective programming in survey development. The second layer involves astute advertising and recruitment tactics to minimize illegitimate responses during survey dissemination. The third layer includes algorithms and other mechanisms to identify suspicious responses for possible exclusion during data verification. When we peel off the layers and reach the core problem of illegitimate responses to online surveys—financial incentives—we will propose ways of navigating respondent reimbursement to mitigate their inadvertent harmful impacts on the research process. By proposing these solutions, we aim to protect the integrity of scientific inquiry in psychology, especially given how often this method is used in the discipline.

PURPOSE Stigma related to mental health is well documented and a major barrier to using mental and physical health care. Integrated behavioral health (IBH) in primary care, in which behavioral/mental health care services are located within a primary care setting, may reduce the experience of stigma. The purpose of this study was to assess the opinions of patients and health care professionals about mental illness stigma as a barrier to engagement with IBH and to gain insight into strategies to reduce stigma, encourage discussion of mental health, and increase uptake of IBH care. METHODS We conducted semistructured interviews with 16 patients referred to IBH in a prior year and 15 health care professionals (12 primary care physicians and 3 psychologists). Interviews were transcribed and inductively coded separately by 2 coders for common themes and subthemes under the topic headings of barriers, facilitators, and recommendations. RESULTS We identified 10 converging themes from interviews with patients and the health care professionals, representing important complementary perspectives, with respect to barriers, facilitators, and recommendations. Barriers included professionals, families, and the public as sources of stigma, as well as self-stigma or avoidance, or internalizing negative stereotypes. Facilitators and recommendations included normalizing discussion of mental health and mental health care-seeking action, using patient-centered and empathetic communication strategies, sharing by health care professionals of their own experiences, and tailoring the discussion of mental health to patients' preferred understanding. CONCLUSIONS Health care professionals can help reduce perceptions of stigma by having conversations with patients that normalize mental health discussion, use patient-centered communication, promote professional self-disclosure, and are tailored to patients' preferred understanding. Key words: integrated behavioral health; mental health; mental health services delivery; stigma; primary care; health services accessibility; barriers; physician-patient relations; attitude of health personnel; patient acceptance of health care; patient-centered care; communication https://doi.org/10.1370/afm.2924, INTRODUCTION The well-documented stigma of mental illness is a barrier to patients seeking and benefitting from mental and physical health care. Stigma is the societal labeling, stereotyping, and rejecting of [...]

Objective: Although violent extremism is often attributed to clinical (dysfunctional) dispositions, it is also possible that violent Jihadists might be clinically "normal" but bear certain personality signatures. This alternative view has yet to be tested. Method: In six studies, employing hard‐to‐reach Muslim samples, including one study of former Mujahideen, we investigated the relationship between basic personality traits and violent extremism. We further used a known group paradigm to validate the personality signatures of violent extremism, comparing a sample of former Mujahideen with another sample from Afghanistan. Results: These studies and an internal meta‐analysis revealed that Lower Openness to Experience, lower Emotionality, and lower Altruism were associated with more violent intentions to support Muslims. Higher Altruism was associated with higher levels of nonviolent intention to support Muslims. Supporting the validity of the nonviolent intention measure, similar associations were found in Study 3 with overt behavioral support of Muslims (donations). More important, compared to the nonMujahideen, the Mujahideen sample scored lower on average on, for instance, Openness, indicating that these results go beyond self‐reported, findings. Conclusion: We demonstrated that personality predicts violent and nonviolent defense of Muslims among four general populations of Muslims living in the West and in Asia (including the Middle East), and a sample of Mujahideen in Afghanistan. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the past 15 years, the adoption of subnational immigration policies in the United States, such as those established by individual states, has gone from nearly zero to over 300 per year. These include welcoming policies aimed at attracting and incorporating immigrants, as well as unwelcoming policies directed at denying immigrants access to public resources and services. Using data from a 2016 random digit-dialing telephone survey with an embedded experiment, we examine whether institutional support for policies that are either welcoming or hostile toward immigrants differentially shape Latinos' and whites' feelings of belonging in their state (Arizona/New Mexico, adjacent states with contrasting immigration policies). We randomly assigned individuals from the representative sample (n = 1,903) of Latinos (US and foreign born) and whites (all US born) to consider policies that were either welcoming of or hostile toward immigrants. Across both states of residence, Latinos, especially those foreign born, regardless of citizenship, expressed more positive affect and greater belonging when primed with a welcoming (vs. hostile) policy. Demonstrating the importance of local norms, these patterns held among US-born whites, except among self-identified politically conservative whites, who showed more negative affect and lower levels of belonging in response to welcoming policies. Thus, welcoming immigration policies, supported by institutional authorities, can create a sense of belonging not only among newcomers that is vital to successful integration but also among a large segment of the population that is not a direct beneficiary of such policies-US-born whites.

We extend work on how, when, and why people accommodate another's bias by drawing from attribution theories and research on evaluative transfer to investigate how observers reasoned about an actor who accommodated the sexist views of another person. As predicted, participants made stronger internal, sexist attributions for actors who accommodated (vs. rejected) another person's sexism (Study 1). Moreover, participants made stronger sexist attributions when a male (vs. female) actor accommodated a man's prejudice against women, and they responded more negatively as a result. The same actor-gender effect emerged in Study 2, except when the decision to accommodate someone else's sexism contradicted the actor's previous hiring intentions. Across studies, stronger attributions to the sexism of the actor were associated with participants' negative reactions to the decision and proposed penalties for the actor, and partly explained why participants reacted more negatively when a male (vs. female) actor accommodated gender prejudice. To reduce gender employment discrimination, our findings suggest that organizational leaders may develop interventions that rely on social norms, raising awareness among hiring managers that, although accommodating sexism might seem to align with their job duties, others view it negatively and actively penalize individuals who engage in it. Additional online materials for this article are available on PWQ's website at http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/suppl/10.1177/03616843231221501 [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this narrative review, we examined 134 studies of the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action benefiting disadvantaged groups. We aimed to identify whether, when, and why contact has mobilizing effects (promoting collective action) or sedative effects (inhibiting collective action). For both moderators and mediators, factors associated with the intergroup situation (compared with those associated with the out-group or the in-group) emerged as the most important. Group status had important effects. For members of socially advantaged groups (examined in 98 studies, 100 samples), contact had a general mobilizing effect, which was stronger when contact increased awareness of experiences of injustice among members of disadvantaged groups. For members of disadvantaged groups (examined in 49 studies, 58 samples), contact had mixed effects. Contact that increased awareness of injustice mobilized collection action; contact that made the legitimacy of group hierarchy or threat of retaliation more salient produced sedative effects. We present a review of existing studies that have investigated the relationship between intergroup contact and collective action aimed at promoting equity for disadvantaged groups. We further consider the influence of contact that is positive or negative and face-to-face or indirect (e.g., through mass or social media), and we distinguish between collective action that involves socially acceptable behaviors or is destructive and violent. We identified 134 studies, considering both advantaged (100 samples) and disadvantaged groups (58 samples). We found that intergroup contact impacts collective action differently depending on group status. Contact generally leads advantaged groups to mobilize in favor of disadvantaged groups. However, contact has variable effects on members of disadvantaged groups: It sometimes promotes their collective action in support of their own group; in other cases, it leads them to be less likely to engage in such action. We examine when and why contact can have these different effects. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

We examined the dynamics of minority‐directed police violence by considering how our White participants' empathy for Black victims may be influenced by critical intragroup differences related to racial stereotyping. Although the role of stereotyping in reactions to Black Americans accused of crime is well‐established, we explore the influence of pejorative Black stereotypes on reactions to Black victims of police violence. Specifically, we investigated the roles of individual differences in the endorsement of the Black criminal stereotype among White observers and manipulated the crime‐unrelated stereotypicality (i.e. stereotypical, counterstereotypical) of Black victims of police violence. White US MTurk participants read about a White policeman shooting a Black man (Study 1, n = 140) or sexually assaulting a Black woman (Study 2, n = 166). Across both studies, strong stereotype endorsers reported relatively low empathy for stereotypical victims, mediated by greater blame towards those victims. This finding demonstrates the relevance of heretofore untested motivated reasoning processes in the outgroup empathy deficits literature. Weak stereotype endorsers showed relatively high empathy and low victim blame regardless of Black victim stereotypicality, indicating limited sensitivity to outgroup member suffering is not inevitable. We consider the practical implications of the findings for policing and for citizenship education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Professional workshops aimed at increasing student diversity typically urge college-level science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) educators to implement inclusive teaching practices. A model of the process by which educators adopt such practices, and the relationship between adoption and 2 ideologies of diversity is tested here. One ideology, colorblindness, downplays differences based on gender or color. The other, multiculturalism, embraces differences. Pathway modeling revealed reliable, discrete steps in the process of adoption. Independently, greater endorsement of colorblindness predicted adoption of fewer inclusive teaching practices, and multiculturalism predicted adoption of more practices. These findings inform national-level intervention efforts about the process by which educators adopt inclusive teaching practices, and suggest that interventions might consider educators' personal beliefs and approaches to diversity.