Same-sex marriage legalization associated with reduced implicit and explicit antigay bias.

The current research tested whether the passing of government legislation, signaling the prevailing attitudes of the local majority, was associated with changes in citizens' attitudes. Specifically, with ∼1 million responses over a 12-y window, we tested whether state-by-state same-sex marriage legislation was associated with decreases in antigay implicit and explicit bias. Results across five operationalizations consistently provide support for this possibility. Both implicit and explicit bias were decreasing before same-sex marriage legalization, but decreased at a sharper rate following legalization. Moderating this effect was whether states passed legislation locally. Although states passing legislation experienced a greater decrease in bias following legislation, states that never passed legislation demonstrated increased antigay bias following federal legalization. Our work highlights how government legislation can inform individuals' attitudes, even when these attitudes may be deeply entrenched and socially and politically volatile.

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.

Introducing the Sociopolitical Motive × Intergroup Threat Model to Understand How Monoracial Perceivers' Sociopolitical Motives Influence Their Categorization of Multiracial People.

Researchers have used social dominance, system justification, authoritarianism, and social identity theories to understand how monoracial perceivers' sociopolitical motives influence their categorization of multiracial people. The result has been a growing understanding of how particular sociopolitical motives and contexts affect categorization, without a unifying perspective to integrate these insights. We review evidence supporting each theory's predictions concerning how monoracial perceivers categorize multiracial people who combine their ingroup with an outgroup, with attention to the moderating role of perceiver group status. We find most studies cannot arbitrate between theories of categorization and reveal additional gaps in the literature. To advance this research area, we introduce the sociopolitical motive × intergroup threat model of racial categorization that (a) clarifies which sociopolitical motives interact with which intergroup threats to predict categorization and (b) highlights the role of perceiver group status. Furthermore, we consider how our model can help understand phenomena beyond multiracial categorization.

Contextual influences on individual targets' perceived contributions to group diversity.

Many organizations want to achieve diversity, yet who "counts" as contributing to diversity is malleable. Across four experiments, we explore how contextual influences shape perceptions of diversity, including what happens when information at different contextual levels conflicts. In Study 1 (N = 160) and Study 2 (N = 69, preregistered), we find that when participants believe White women, White men, and Black men to be overrepresented in a profession at the national level, individuals with those identities are rated as contributing less to the diversity of a group of workers within that profession. In Study 3 (N = 164), participants were asked to make diversity judgments within the same profession (American elementary school teachers), but the composition of the target group under evaluation was either White female-dominated (aligned with the profession) or White male-dominated (diverged from the profession). Presenting the group as White male-dominated (compared to White female-dominated) increased perceptions of White women's contributions to diversity and decreased perceptions of White men's, and men of color's, contributions to diversity. In Study 4 (N = 216, preregistered), we attempted to call participants' attention to representation at a single level only (i.e., national vs. target group), when representation information conflicted across levels. However, perceived contributions to diversity did not shift based on experimental conditions. It appears that Americans' judgments of who increases a group's diversity can be affected by representation at multiple levels, although it may be difficult for perceivers to prioritize one contextual level only when such information conflicts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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.

Antecedents and consequences of LGBT individuals' perceptions of straight allyship.

People often self-identify as allies to the lesbian, gay, bisexual, and transgender (LGBT) community. This research examined on what basis LGBT individuals perceive others to be allies and documents the consequences of perceived allyship. Studies 1a (n = 40) and 1b (n = 69) collected open-ended descriptions of allyship provided by LGBT participants. Coding of the responses suggested multiple components to being an ally: (a) being nonprejudiced toward the group, (b) taking action against discrimination and inequality, and (c) having humility about one's perspective in discussions about LGBT issues. In Studies 2a (n = 161) and 2b (n = 319, with nationally representative characteristics), an allyship scale was developed and validated for general and specific relational contexts, respectively. Study 2b also showed that LGBT individuals' perceptions of close others' allyship were positively associated with their own well-being and relationship quality with the close other. Study 3, an experiment, demonstrated that nonprejudice and action had an interactive effect on perceived allyship, such that action increased perceived allyship more when prejudice was low (vs. high). Study 4 was a weekly experience study of LGBT participants and an outgroup roommate. Perceiving one's roommate to be a good ally predicted higher self-esteem, greater subjective well-being, and better relationship quality with the roommate, both between and within participants. Furthermore, perceived allyship in 1 week was associated with increases in LGBT individuals' mental health and relationship quality with the roommate the following week. This research advances knowledge about what allyship means to LGBT individuals and identifies intra- and interpersonal benefits of allyship. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

A recognition advantage for members of higher-status racial groups.

The other-race effect (ORE) is a recognition memory advantage afforded to one's racial ingroup versus outgroup. The motivational relevance of the ingroup-because of relationships, belonging and self-esteem-is central to many theoretical explanations for the ORE. However, to date, the motivational relevance of outgroups has received considerably less attention in the ORE literature. Across six experiments, Black, White, Asian and Latinx American participants consistently demonstrated better recognition memory for the faces of relatively higher-status racial/ethnic group members than those of lower-status groups. This higher-status recognition advantage even appeared to override the ORE, such that participants better recognized members of higher-status outgroups-but not an outgroup of equivalent status-compared to members of their own ingroup. However, across a variety of self-reported perceived status measures, status differences between the high- and low-status groups generally did not moderate the documented recognition advantage. These findings provide initial evidence for the potential role of group status in the ORE and in recognition memory more broadly, but future work is needed to rule out alternative explanations.

Intergroup Context Moderates the Impact of White Americans' Identification on Racial Categorization of Ambiguous Faces.

We examined how the number of groups in a categorization task influences how White Americans categorize ambiguous faces. We investigated the strength of identity-driven ingroup overexclusion-wherein highly identified perceivers overexclude ambiguous members from the ingroup-proposing that, compared with dichotomous tasks (with only the ingroup and one outgroup), tasks with more outgroups attenuate identity-driven ingroup overexclusion (a dilution effect). Fourteen studies (n = 4,001) measured White Americans' racial identification and their categorizations of ambiguous faces and manipulated the categorization task to have two groups, three groups, or an unspecified number of groups (open-ended). In all three conditions, participants overexcluded faces from the White category on average. There was limited support for the dilution effect: identity-driven ingroup overexclusion was absent in the three-group task and only weakly supported in the open-ended task. The presence of multiple outgroups may dampen the impact of racial identity on race perceptions among White Americans.

Whose Side Are You On? Asian Americans' Mistrust of Asian-White Biracials Predicts More Exclusion From the Ingroup.

We investigated Asian Americans' perceptions of Asian-White biracials. Because the Asian/White boundary may be more permeable than other minority/White boundaries, we reasoned that Asian Americans are more likely than Black Americans to be skeptical of biracials, perceiving that biracials would prefer to identify as White and would be disloyal to Asians, consequently categorizing them as more outgroup. We further reasoned that Asian Americans' concerns about and exclusion of biracials would be predicted by greater perceived discrimination against Asian Americans, which increases the incentive for biracials to pass into the higher status racial group. Studies 1 and 2 provided correlational support for these theorized relationships among Asian Americans. Study 2 showed that perceived discrimination did not increase Black Americans' concerns about biracials' identity preferences and loyalty. Studies 3 and 4 provided causal evidence for the roles of perceived discrimination and biracial identity preferences, respectively, in Asian Americans' exclusion of biracials.

At face value: Psychological outcomes differ for real vs. computer-generated multiracial faces.

Multiracial research emphasizes hypodescent categorizations and relies on computer-generated stimuli. Four experiments showed that real biracial faces in a 2-Choice categorization task (White, Black) elicited hypodescent more than computer-generated faces. Additionally, Experiment 2 showed a 2-Choice categorization task with real biracial faces increased racial essentialism more than a 3-Choice categorization task. Experiment 3 showed that mere exposure to real biracial faces did not increase essentialism. Finally, Experiments 4a and 4b replicated hypodescent outcomes when comparing real biracial faces to computer-generated versions of those same faces. In sum, these findings initiate a discussion surrounding the methodology of multiracial categorizations.

"You're one of us": Black Americans' use of hypodescent and its association with egalitarianism.

Research on multiracial categorization has focused on majority group social perceivers (i.e., White Americans), demonstrating that they (a) typically categorize Black-White multiracials according to a rule of hypodescent, associating them more with their lower status parent group than their higher status parent group, and (b) do so at least in part to preserve the hierarchical status quo. The current work examines whether members of an ethnic minority group, Black Americans, also associate Black-White multiracials more with their minority versus majority parent group and if so, why. The first 2 studies (1A and 1B) directly compared Black and White Americans, and found that although both Blacks and Whites categorized Black-White multiracials as more Black than White, Whites' use of hypodescent was associated with intergroup antiegalitarianism, whereas Blacks' use of hypodescent was associated with intergroup egalitarianism. Studies 2-3 reveal that egalitarian Blacks use hypodescent in part because they perceive that Black-White biracials face discrimination and consequently feel a sense of linked fate with them. This research establishes that the use of hypodescent extends to minority as well as majority perceivers but also shows that the beliefs associated with the use of hypodescent differ as a function of perceiver social status. In doing so, we broaden the social scientific understanding of hypodescent, showing how it can be an inclusionary rather than exclusionary phenomenon. (PsycINFO Database Record

Understanding diversity: the importance of social acceptance.

Two studies investigated how people define and perceive diversity in the historically majority-group dominated contexts of business and academia. We hypothesized that individuals construe diversity as both the numeric representation of racial minorities and the social acceptance of racial minorities within a group. In Study 1, undergraduates' (especially minorities') perceptions of campus diversity were predicted by perceived social acceptance on a college campus, above and beyond perceived minority representation. Study 2 showed that increases in a company's representation and social acceptance independently led to increases in perceived diversity of the company among Whites. Among non-Whites, representation and social acceptance only increased perceived diversity of the company when both qualities were high. Together these findings demonstrate the importance of both representation and social acceptance to the achievement of diversity in groups and that perceiver race influences the relative importance of these two components of diversity.

Cultural Differences in Support Provision: The Importance of Relationship Quality.

Emotional expression is highly valued in individualistic cultures, whereas emotional restraint is prioritized in collectivistic cultures. We hypothesized that high-quality relationships in these cultures would exhibit the forms of support provision congruent with their respective expectations. Study 1 examined support transactions among friends in response to a laboratory stressor and found that objectively judged relationship quality (RQ) more strongly positively predicted emotion-focused support provision behaviors by European Americans than by Asian Americans. Study 2, a questionnaire study, found that self-reported RQ predicted emotion-focused support provision more strongly among European Americans than among Japanese. Study 3 investigated more indirect forms of support and found that RQ more strongly predicted worrying about and monitoring close others enduring stressors and spending time with them without talking about the stressor among Asian Americans compared with European Americans. These findings suggest that RQ is expressed in terms of support provision in culturally normative ways.

Sowing the seeds of stereotypes: Spontaneous inferences about groups.

Although dispositional inferences may be consciously drawn from the trait implications of observed behavior, abundant research has shown that people also spontaneously infer trait dispositions simply in the process of comprehending behavior. These spontaneous trait inferences (STIs) can occur without intention or awareness. All research on STIs has studied STIs based on behaviors of individual persons. Yet important aspects of social life occur in groups, and people regularly perceive groups engaging in coordinated action. We propose that perceivers make spontaneous trait inferences about groups (STIGs), parallel to the STIs formed about individuals. In 5 experiments we showed that (a) perceivers made STIGs comparable with STIs about individuals (based on the same behaviors), (b) a cognitive load manipulation did not affect the occurrence of STIGs, (c) STIGs occurred for groups varying in entitativity, (d) STIGs influenced perceivers' impression ratings of those groups, and (e) STIG-based group impressions generalized to new group members. These experiments provide the first evidence for STIGs, a process that may contribute to the formation of spontaneous group impressions. Implications for stereotype formation are discussed.

Gendered Facial Cues Influence Race Categorizations.

Race and gender categories, although long presumed to be perceived independently, are inextricably tethered in social perception due in part to natural confounding of phenotypic cues. We predicted that target gender would affect race categorizations. Consistent with this hypothesis, feminine faces compelled White categorizations, and masculine faces compelled Asian or Black categorizations of racially ambiguous targets (Study 1), monoracial targets (Study 2), and real facial photographs (Study 3). The efficiency of judgments varied concomitantly. White categorizations were rendered more rapidly for feminine, relative to masculine faces, but the opposite was true for Asian and Black categorizations (Studies 1-3). Moreover, the effect of gender on categorization efficiency was compelled by racial phenotypicality for Black targets (Study 3). Finally, when targets' race prototypicality was held constant, gender still influenced race categorizations (Study 4). These findings indicate that race categorizations are biased by presumably unrelated gender cues.

Motivation to control prejudice predicts categorization of multiracials.

Multiracial individuals often do not easily fit into existing racial categories. Perceivers may adopt a novel racial category to categorize multiracial targets, but their willingness to do so may depend on their motivations. We investigated whether perceivers' levels of internal motivation to control prejudice (IMS) and external motivation to control prejudice (EMS) predicted their likelihood of categorizing Black-White multiracial faces as Multiracial. Across four studies, IMS positively predicted perceivers' categorizations of multiracial faces as Multiracial. The association between IMS and Multiracial categorizations was strongest when faces were most racially ambiguous. Explicit prejudice, implicit prejudice, and interracial contact were ruled out as explanations for the relationship between IMS and Multiracial categorizations. EMS may be negatively associated with the use of the Multiracial category. Therefore, perceivers' motivations to control prejudice have important implications for racial categorization processes.

Culture and social support provision: who gives what and why.

The present research examined cultural differences in the type and frequency of support provided as well as the motivations underlying these behaviors. Study 1, an open-ended survey, asked participants about their social interactions in the past 24 hours and found that European Americans reported providing emotion-focused support more frequently than problem-focused support, whereas Japanese exhibited the opposite pattern. Study 2, a closed-ended questionnaire study, found that, in response to the close other's big stressor, European Americans provided more emotion-focused support whereas Japanese provided equivalent amounts of emotion-focused and problem-focused support. In addition, Study 2 examined motivational explanations for these differences. Social support provision was motivated by the goal of closeness and increasing recipient self-esteem among European Americans, but only associated with the motive for closeness among Japanese. These studies illustrate the importance of considering cultural context and its role in determining the meaning and function of various support behaviors.