Broadening the stimulus set: Introducing the American Multiracial Faces Database.

Face-based perceptions form the basis for how people behave towards each other and, hence, are central to understanding human interaction. Studying face perception requires a large and diverse set of stimuli in order to make ecologically valid, generalizable conclusions. To date, there are no publicly available databases with a substantial number of Multiracial or racially ambiguous faces. Our systematic review of the literature on Multiracial person perception documented that published studies have relied on computer-generated faces (84% of stimuli), Black-White faces (74%), and male faces (63%). We sought to address these issues, and to broaden the diversity of available face stimuli, by creating the American Multiracial Faces Database (AMFD). The AMFD is a novel collection of 110 faces with mixed-race heritage and accompanying ratings of those faces by naive observers that are freely available to academic researchers. The faces (smiling and neutral expression poses) were rated on attractiveness, emotional expression, racial ambiguity, masculinity, racial group membership(s), gender group membership(s), warmth, competence, dominance, and trustworthiness. The large majority of the AMFD faces are racially ambiguous and can pass into at least two different racial categories. These faces will be useful to researchers seeking to study Multiracial person perception as well as those looking for racially ambiguous faces in order to study categorization processes in general. Consequently, the AMFD will be useful to a broad group of researchers who are studying face perception.

Best Practices and Methodological Strategies for Addressing Generalizability in Neuropsychological Assessment.

Generalizability considerations are widely discussed and a core foundation for understanding when and why treatment effects will replicate across sample demographics. However, guidelines on assessing and reporting generalizability-related factors differ across fields and are inconsistently applied. This paper synthesizes obstacles and best practices to apply recent work on measurement and sample diversity. We present a brief history of how knowledge in psychology has been constructed, with implications for who has been historically prioritized in research. We then review how generalizability remains a contemporary threat to neuropsychological assessment and outline best practices for researchers and clinical neuropsychologists. In doing so, we provide concrete tools to evaluate whether a given assessment is generalizable across populations and assist researchers in effectively testing and reporting treatment differences across sample demographics.

Multiracial individuals' experiences of rejection and acceptance from different racial groups and implications for life satisfaction.

Two studies examine Multiracial Asian-White, Black-White, Latinx-White, and Native American-White people's experiences of rejection (Study 1) and acceptance (Study 2) from potential racial ingroups, and associations with life satisfaction. In Study 1, Multiracial participants reported comparable levels of rejection from their monoracial minoritized ingroups and White ingroup, but significantly less rejection from their Multiracial ingroup. In Study 2, participants reported feeling slightly less accepted from monoracial minoritized ingroups than from the White ingroup. Across both studies, greater rejection, and less acceptance, from the White ingroup was related to lower life satisfaction. Notably, this effect was strongest among Native American-White Multiracial people relative to other Multiracial groups in our sample. Findings highlight how Multiracial people's multiple potential ingroups relate to their social rejection and acceptance experiences, and that rejection and acceptance from higher status potential ingroups (i.e., White people) may play a role in subjective well-being disparities for some Multiracial groups.

Implications of research staff demographics for psychological science.

Long-standing research traditions in psychology have established the fundamental impact of social categories, such as race and gender, on people's perceptions of themselves and others, as well as on general human cognition and behavior. However, there is a general tendency to ignore research staff demographics (e.g., researchers' race and gender) in research development and research reports. Variation in research staff demographics can exert systematic and scientifically informative influences on results from psychological research. Consequently, research staff demographics need to be considered, studied, and/or reported, along with how these demographics were allowed to vary across participants or conditions (e.g., random assignment, matched with participant demographics, or included as a factor in the experimental design). In addition to providing an overview of multidisciplinary evidence of research staff demographics effects, it is discussed how research staff demographics might influence research findings through (a) ingroup versus outgroup effects, (b) stereotype and (implicit) bias effects, and (c) priming and social tuning effects. Finally, an overview of recommended considerations is included (see Appendix) to help illustrate how to systematically incorporate relevant research staff demographics in psychological science. (PsycINFO Database Record