Open science, communal culture, and women's participation in the movement to improve science.

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change-in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices-provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women's participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures (n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women's participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.

Support for Resettling Refugees: The Role of Fixed Versus Growth Mind-Sets.

In six studies ( N = 2,340), we identified one source of people's differential support for resettling refugees in their country-their beliefs about whether the kind of person someone is can be changed (i.e., a growth mind-set) or is fixed (i.e., a fixed mind-set). U.S. and UK citizens who believed that the kind of person someone is can be changed were more likely to support resettling refugees in their country (Studies 1 and 2). Study 3 identified a causal relationship between the type of mind-set people hold and their support for resettling refugees. Importantly, people with a growth mind-set were more likely to believe that refugees can assimilate in the host society but not that they should assimilate, and the belief that refugees can assimilate mediated the relationship between people's mind-sets and their support for resettling refugees (Studies 4-6). The findings identify an important antecedent of people's support for resettling refugees and provide novel insights into the science of mind-sets.

Inaugural editorial.

The commencement of a new editorial tenure within the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology: Attitudes and Social Cognition (JPSP: ASC) provides an opportunity for reflection regarding the journal's core mission. The editors recognize that social psychology is at a crossroads due to competing demands that may have led to reduced submissions and posed challenges for previous editors in filling the journal's pages. Now, JPSP: ASC has been allotted more pages to allow for growth during this editorial term. Although this is desirable for the field, it adds to the pressure of identifying articles for publication given the difficulties filling the pages during previous editorial terms. As the premier outlet of social psychology since 1965, JPSP: ASC will retain its centrality if we increase submissions and publish more articles, while continuing to strive to communicate methodologically trustworthy, intellectually stimulating, and socially relevant research, in a responsible fashion. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

The business case for diversity backfires: Detrimental effects of organizations' instrumental diversity rhetoric for underrepresented group members' sense of belonging.

Many organizations offer justifications for why diversity matters, that is, organizational diversity cases. We investigated their content, prevalence, and consequences for underrepresented groups. We identified the business case, an instrumental rhetoric claiming that diversity is valuable for organizational performance, and the fairness case, a noninstrumental rhetoric justifying diversity as the right thing to do. Using an algorithmic classification, Study 1 (N = 410) found that the business case is far more prevalent than the fairness case among the Fortune 500. Extending theories of social identity threat, we next predicted that the business case (vs. fairness case, or control) undermines underrepresented groups' anticipated sense of belonging to, and thus interest in joining organizations-an effect driven by social identity threat. Study 2 (N = 151) found that LGBTQ+ professionals randomly assigned to read an organization's business (vs. fairness) case anticipated lower belonging, and in turn, less attraction to said organization. Study 3 (N = 371) conceptually replicated this experiment among female (but not male) Science, Technology, Engineering, and Math (STEM) job seekers. Study 4 (N = 509) replicated these findings among STEM women, and documented the hypothesized process of social identity threat. Study 5 (N = 480) found that the business (vs. fairness and control) case similarly undermines African American students' belonging. Study 6 (N = 1,019) replicated Study 5 using a minimal manipulation, and tested these effects' generalizability to Whites. Together, these findings suggest that despite its seeming positivity, the most prevalent organizational diversity case functions as a cue of social identity threat that paradoxically undermines belonging across LGBTQ+ individuals, STEM women, and African Americans, thus hindering organizations' diversity goals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

Reducing gender bias in the evaluation and selection of future leaders: The role of decision-makers' mindsets about the universality of leadership potential.

Extensive research has documented organizational decision-makers' preference for men over women when they evaluate and select candidates for leadership positions. We conceptualize a novel construct-mindsets about the universality of leadership potential-that can help reduce this bias. People can believe either that only some individuals have high leadership potential (i.e., a nonuniversal mindset) or that most individuals have high leadership potential (i.e., a universal mindset). Five studies investigated the relationship between these mindsets and decision-makers' gender biases in leader evaluation and selection decisions. The more senior government officials in China held a universal mindset, the less they showed gender bias when rating their subordinates' leadership capability (Study 1). Working adults in the United Kingdom who held a more universal mindset exhibited less gender bias when evaluating and selecting job candidates for a leadership position (Study 2). In an experiment, Singaporean students exposed to a universal mindset exhibited less gender bias when evaluating and selecting candidates than those exposed to a nonuniversal mindset (Study 3). Another experiment with working adults in China replicated this pattern and added a control condition to confirm the directionality of the effect (Study 4). Last, Study 5 showed that a more universal mindset was associated with less gender bias particularly among decision-makers with stronger gender stereotypes in the domain of leadership. This research demonstrates that, although they are seemingly unrelated to gender, mindsets about the universality of leadership potential can influence the extent to which people express gender bias in the leadership context. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A Bias Toward Kindness Goals in Performance Feedback to Women (vs. Men).

While research has documented positivity biases in workplace feedback to women versus men, this phenomenon is not fully understood. We take a motivational perspective, theorizing that the gender stereotype of warmth shapes feedback givers' goals, amplifying the importance placed on kindness when giving critical feedback to a woman versus a man. We found support for this hypothesis in a survey of professionals giving real developmental feedback (Study 1, N = 4,842 raters evaluating N = 423 individuals) and five experiments with MBA students, lab participants, and managers (Studies 2-5, N = 1,589). Across studies, people prioritized the goal of kindness more when they gave, or anticipated giving, critical feedback to a woman versus a man. Studies 1, 3, and 5 suggest that this kindness bias relates to gendered positivity biases, and Studies 4a and 4b tested potential mechanisms and supported an indirect effect through warmth. We discuss implications for the study of motivation and workplace gender bias.

A Growth Mindset Frame Increases Opting In to Reading Information About Bias.

We explore the conditions under which people will opt in to reading information about bias and stereotypes, a key precursor to the types of self-directed learning that diversity and anti-bias advocates increasingly endorse. Across one meta-analysis (total N = 1,122; 7 studies, 5 pre-registered) and 2 pre-registered experiments (total N = 1,717), we identify a condition under which people opt in to reading more about implicit bias and stereotypes. People randomly assigned to read a growth, rather than fixed, mindset frame about bias opted in to read more information about stereotypes and implicit bias (Study 1 and Study 3). The mechanism that drove these effects was individuals' construal of the task as a challenge (Studies 2 and 3). Our findings offer insight into how to promote engagement with information about stereotypes and biases. We discuss how this work advances the study of mindsets and diversity science.

Not such a complainer anymore: Confrontation that signals a growth mindset can attenuate backlash.

We report the first investigation of whether observers draw information about mindsets from behavior, specifically prejudice confrontation. We tested two questions across 10 studies (N = 3,168). First, would people who observe someone confront a biased comment (vs. remain silent) see them as endorsing more growth (vs. fixed) mindsets about prejudice and bias? If so, would the growth mindset perceptions that arise from confrontation (vs. remaining silent) attenuate the backlash that observers exhibit against confronters? We investigated these questions using scenarios (Studies 1, 2a-b, 4, 5a-d), naturalistic confrontations of national, race, and gender stereotypes reported retrospectively (Study 3), and an in-person laboratory experiment of actual confrontations of racial bias (Study 6). Correlational and experimental methods yielded support for our core hypotheses: People spontaneously imbue someone who confronts a biased comment with more growth mindset beliefs about prejudice and bias (Studies 1, 2a-b, 4, 6), regardless of whether participants observe the confrontation (Studies 1, 2a-b, 5a-d) or are being confronted themselves (Studies 2a-4, 6). The growth mindset perceptions arising from these confrontations suppress backlash, assessed by classic interpersonal perceptions (Studies 4-5) and judgments of interpersonal warmth and willingness to interact again in the future (Study 6), both when the confronter was a target of the biased behavior (Studies 1-5), and when they were an ally (Study 6), in both correlational studies (Study 3-4) and when growth mindset (about personality, Study 5; about prejudice, Study 6) was manipulated, confirming causality. We discuss implications for the study of mindsets, confrontation, and intergroup relations. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Support for increasing low-wage workers' compensation: The role of fixed-growth mindsets about intelligence.

Approximately 44% of U.S. workers are low-wage workers. Recent years have witnessed a raging debate about whether to raise their minimum wages. Why do some decision-makers support raising wages and others do not? Ten studies (four preregistered) examined people's beliefs about the malleability of intelligence as a key antecedent. The more U.S. human resource managers (Study 1) and Indian business owners (Study 2) believed that people's intelligence can grow (i.e., had a growth mindset), the more they supported increasing low-wage workers' compensation. In key U.S. swing states (Study 3a), and a nationally representative sample (Study 3b), residents with a more growth mindset were more willing to support ballot propositions increasing the minimum wage and other compensation. Study 4 provided causal evidence. The next two studies confirmed the specificity of the predictor. People's beliefs about the malleability of intelligence, but not personality (Study 5a) or effort (Study 5b), predicted their support for increasing low-wage workers' compensation. Study 6 examined multiple potential mechanisms, including empathy, attributions for poverty, and environmental affordances. The relationship between growth mindset and support for raising low-wage workers' wages was explained by more situational rather than dispositional attributions for poverty. Finally, Studies 7a and 7b replicated the effect of growth mindset on support for increasing low-wage workers' compensation and provided confirmatory evidence for the mediator-situational, rather than dispositional, attributions of poverty. These findings suggest that growth mindsets about intelligence promote support for increasing low-wage workers' wages; we discuss the theoretical and practical implications. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A choice mind-set increases the acceptance and maintenance of wealth inequality.

Wealth inequality has significant psychological, physiological, societal, and economic costs. In six experiments, we investigated how seemingly innocuous, culturally pervasive ideas can help maintain and further wealth inequality. Specifically, we tested whether the concept of choice, which is deeply valued in American society, leads Americans to act in ways that perpetuate wealth inequality. Thinking in terms of choice, we argue, activates the belief that life outcomes stem from personal agency, not societal factors, and thereby leads people to justify wealth inequality. The results showed that highlighting the concept of choice makes people less disturbed by facts about existing wealth inequality in the United States, more likely to underestimate the role of societal factors in individuals' successes, less likely to support the redistribution of educational resources, and less likely to support raising taxes on the rich-even if doing so would help resolve a budget deficit crisis. These findings indicate that the culturally valued concept of choice contributes to the maintenance of wealth inequality.

Perceiving progress toward social equality: A model of signals and sense-making.

How do people evaluate how much social progress has been achieved, and how do these perceptions influence intergroup attitudes? We present a model summarizing the signals and sense-making that arise when people think about progress. We review the signals that shape progress perceptions when people observe individual exemplars of success from, or substantive advances for, negatively stereotyped groups. We also identify three types of stereotype-relevant cognitive schemas that can be disrupted, or exacerbated, as people work to make sense of social progress: bias and perceived threat, beliefs about persisting inequality, and support for further progress. We highlight the complexities of progress - a reversible, fragmented, and sometimes superficial process - that merit further study. We discuss implications for organizations and society.

Who confronts prejudice?: the role of implicit theories in the motivation to confront prejudice.

Despite the possible costs, confronting prejudice can have important benefits, ranging from the well-being of the target of prejudice to social change. What, then, motivates targets of prejudice to confront people who express explicit bias? In three studies, we tested the hypothesis that targets who hold an incremental theory of personality (i.e., the belief that people can change) are more likely to confront prejudice than targets who hold an entity theory of personality (i.e., the belief that people have fixed traits). In Study 1, targets' beliefs about the malleability of personality predicted whether they spontaneously confronted an individual who expressed bias. In Study 2, targets who held more of an incremental theory reported that they would be more likely to confront prejudice and less likely to withdraw from future interactions with an individual who expressed prejudice. In Study 3, we manipulated implicit theories and replicated these findings. By highlighting the central role that implicit theories of personality play in targets' motivation to confront prejudice, this research has important implications for intergroup relations and social change.

Perceived Centrality in Social Networks Increases Women's Expectations of Confronting Sexism.

This article integrates the study of intergroup relations and social network cognition, predicting that women who occupy central (vs. peripheral) advice network positions are more likely to confront a coworker's gender-biased comment. Study 1 offers correlational evidence of the predicted link between perceived advice network centrality and confronting among employed women, uniquely in advice (but not communication) networks. Study 2 replicates and investigates two possible mechanisms-perceptions of the situation as public and perceived risk of confronting. Study 3 rules out order effects and tests an additional mechanism (expectations of the network members). Study 4 is an experiment that shows people expect central (vs. peripheral) women to confront more, even when she is lower (vs. equal) power. Study 5 replicates the core hypothesis in retrospective accounts of women's responses to real workplace gender bias. Study 6 compares multiple potential mechanisms to provide greater insight into why centrality reliably predicts confrontation.

Progress in women's representation in top leadership weakens people's disturbance with gender inequality in other domains.

Conventional wisdom suggests that progress for women in the domain of top leadership representation will naturally spread to other domains of gender inequality, whether in organizations or beyond. Extending social-cognitive theories of exemplar-based information processing to the study of social progress perceptions for stigmatized groups, we theorized that perceiving substantial female representation in top leadership may instead reduce people's concern with ongoing gender inequality in other domains. Study 1 (N = 331) finds that perceiving greater female representation in top corporate echelons decreases people's disturbance with the gender pay gap, but not with wealth inequality generally. Study 2a (N = 350) and its replication Study 2b (N = 1,098) present correlational evidence of the proposed psychological mechanism: an overgeneralization of women's access to equal opportunities. Study 3 (N = 454) provides experimental evidence for this psychological process, tests attributions of the gender pay gap to women's personal career choices as an alternative mechanism, and introduces a control condition to determine the directionality of the effect. Study 4 (N = 326) replicates and extends the basic effect across various domains of gender inequality within and outside of the workplace. Taken together, these studies highlight the importance of acknowledging the fragmented nature of social progress across domains of inequality, and highlight the psychological underpinnings of a previously overlooked potential barrier for progress toward gender equality. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

What happens after prejudice is confronted in the workplace? How mindsets affect minorities' and women's outlook on future social relations.

Organizations are increasingly concerned with fostering successful diversity. Toward this end, diversity research has focused on trying to reduce prejudice and biased behavior. But what happens when prejudice in the workplace inevitably occurs? Research also needs to focus on whether recovery and repair of social relations after expressions of prejudice are possible. To begin investigating this question, we develop a new framework for understanding reactions to prejudice in the workplace. We hypothesized that when women and minorities choose to confront a prejudiced comment in a workplace interaction (vs. remain silent) and hold a growth (vs. fixed) mindset-the belief that others can change-they remain more positive in their subsequent outlook in the workplace. Studies 1a, 1b, and 2 used hypothetical workplace scenarios to expose participants to someone who expressed bias; Study 3 ensured real-world relevance by eliciting retrospective accounts of workplace bias from African American employees. Across studies, women and minorities who confronted the perpetrator of prejudice exhibited more positive subsequent expectations of that coworker when they held a growth mindset. It is important that these more positive expectations were associated with reports of greater workplace belonging (Study 2), ratings of improved relations with coworkers who had displayed bias (Study 3), and greater workplace satisfaction (Studies 2-3). Thus, a growth mindset contributes to successful workplace diversity by protecting women's and minorities' outlook when they opt to confront expressions of bias. (PsycINFO Database Record

Meta-lay theories of scientific potential drive underrepresented students' sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and mathematics (STEM).

The current research investigates people's perceptions of others' lay theories (or mindsets), an understudied construct that we call meta-lay theories. Six studies examine whether underrepresented students' meta-lay theories influence their sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The studies tested whether underrepresented students who perceive their faculty as believing most students have high scientific aptitude (a universal metatheory) would report a stronger sense of belonging to STEM than those who think their faculty believe that not everyone has high scientific aptitude (a nonuniversal metatheory). Women PhD candidates in STEM fields who held universal rather than nonuniversal metatheories felt greater sense of belonging to their field, both when metatheories were measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Undergraduates who held more universal metatheories reported a higher sense of belonging to STEM (Studies 3 and 4) and earned higher final course grades (Study 3). Experimental manipulations depicting a professor communicating the universal lay theory eliminated the difference between African American and European American students' attraction to a STEM course (Study 5) and between women and men's sense of belonging to STEM (Study 6). Mini meta-analyses indicated that the universal metatheory increases underrepresented students' sense of belonging to STEM, reduces the extent of social identity threat they experience, and reduces their perception of faculty as endorsing stereotypes. Across different underrepresented groups, types of institutions, areas of STEM, and points in the STEM pipeline, students' metaperceptions of faculty's lay theories about scientific aptitude influence their sense of belonging to STEM. (PsycINFO Database Record

Is Education a Fundamental Right? People's Lay Theories About Intellectual Potential Drive Their Positions on Education.

Does every child have a fundamental right to receive a high-quality education? We propose that people's beliefs about whether "nearly everyone" or "only some people" have high intellectual potential drive their positions on education. Three studies found that the more people believed that nearly everyone has high potential, the more they viewed education as a fundamental human right. Furthermore, people who viewed education as a fundamental right, in turn (a) were more likely to support the institution of free public education, (b) were more concerned upon learning that students in the country were not performing well academically compared with students in peer nations, and (c) were more likely to support redistributing educational funds more equitably across wealthier and poorer school districts. The studies show that people's beliefs about intellectual potential can influence their positions on education, which can affect the future quality of life for countless students.

Leveraging Mindsets to Promote Academic Achievement: Policy Recommendations.

The United States must improve its students' educational achievement. Race, gender, and social class gaps persist, and, overall, U.S. students rank poorly among peers globally. Scientific research shows that students' psychology-their "academic mindsets"-have a critical role in educational achievement. Yet policymakers have not taken full advantage of cost-effective and well-validated mindset interventions. In this article, we present two key academic mindsets. The first, a growth mindset, refers to the belief that intelligence can be developed over time. The second, a belonging mindset, refers to the belief that people like you belong in your school or in a given academic field. Extensive research shows that fostering these mindsets can improve students' motivation; raise grades; and reduce racial, gender, and social class gaps. Of course, mindsets are not a panacea, but with proper implementation they can be an excellent point of entry. We show how policy at all levels (federal, state, and local) can leverage mindsets to lift the nation's educational outcomes.

How "it gets better": effectively communicating support to targets of prejudice.

What is said when communicating intergroup support to targets of prejudice, and how do targets react? We hypothesized that people not targeted by prejudice reference social connection (e.g., social support) more than social change (e.g., calling for a reduction in prejudice) in their supportive messages. However, we hypothesized that targets of prejudice would be more comforted by social change messages. We content coded naturalistic messages of support for lesbian, gay, bisexual, transgendered, and questioning teenagers from youtube.com (Study 1) and college undergraduates' statements (Study 2a) and found social connection messages more frequent than social change messages. Next, we explored targets' responses (Studies 2b-4b). Lesbian and gay participants rated social connection messages less comforting than social change messages (Study 3). Study 4 showed that only targets of prejudice distinguish social connection from social change messages in this way, versus non-targets. These results highlight the importance of studying the communication, content, and consequences of positive intergroup attitudes.