Lifetime ostracism experiences and mechanisms of pain.

One social mechanism by which marginalization is enacted is via ostracism. Recent research has demonstrated ostracism's impact on physical health, but little is known about the relationship between accumulated lifetime experiences of ostracism and pain. Despite recent calls for added attention to social modulation of pain and social indicators of pain disparities, the impact of specific social factors on pain-including those of ostracism-are not well understood. Results of laboratory studies on the effects of acute ostracism experiences on pain sensitivity have been mixed. However, these studies have not considered lived and repeated experiences of ostracism, and primarily included single static measures of pain sensitivity. Additionally, inclusion and representation of the relationship between ostracism experiences and pain among people with minoritized identities are lacking in the current literature. In this study, we explored accumulated lifetime experiences of ostracism as a potential contributing factor to enhanced pain and one social mechanism by which societal inequity may create and maintain inequity in pain. We extracted measures of lifetime experiences of ostracism from six studies focused on social factors and (non-chronic) pain conducted between 2016 and 2020 (n = 505 adults). To retain and examine diversity within the sample, we used moderation and within-group analyses. Results indicate that greater experiences of lifetime ostracism are associated with lower cold pain tolerance, but not other pain measures, in the whole sample. Moderation and within-group analyses reveal opposing patterns of results between populations included in the extant literature (White participants, convenience samples) and those under-represented in the scientific literature (racialized groups, community samples). This study provides an example of a diversity science approach to examining social indicators of pain, illustrates the limited generalizability of previous studies on ostracism and pain, and highlights the need for increased representation and inclusion to understand mechanisms of pain and inequity.

Buffering anti-fat attitudes using contact: The roles of contact quantity, duration, favorability, and intergroup anxiety.

Decades of intergroup contact research have found that contact with outgroups reduces negative attitudes. Yet, few studies have examined the association between contact and anti-fat attitudes. Furthermore, testing different facets of contact, namely contact quantity versus contact duration, provides more precise theoretical predictions for their effectiveness in this under-tested context. This study examined whether intergroup anxiety was indirectly related to and contact favorability moderated the relationship between contact and anti-fat attitudes, tested through the constructs of contact quantity (i.e., how many individuals interacted with) and contact duration (i.e., how often time was spent). Undergraduates (N = 343; 260 women) based in the United States completed an online survey assessing intergroup contact, contact favorability, intergroup anxiety, and anti-fat attitudes. Analyses of conditional indirect effects showed that longer contact but not more contact reduced intergroup anxiety, which lowered anti-fat attitudes. The indirect paths for both contact types were not conditional upon contact favorability. Contact favorability moderated the association between contact duration and anti-fat attitudes such that longer and more favorable contact lowered anti-fat attitudes. Findings are discussed within the contact hypothesis, and future research should explore the distinct elements of the hypothesis as applicable to anti-fat prejudice in in-person and online contexts.

The Future of Women in Psychological Science.

There has been extensive discussion about gender gaps in representation and career advancement in the sciences. However, psychological science itself has yet to be the focus of discussion or systematic review, despite our field's investment in questions of equity, status, well-being, gender bias, and gender disparities. In the present article, we consider 10 topics relevant for women's career advancement in psychological science. We focus on issues that have been the subject of empirical study, discuss relevant evidence within and outside of psychological science, and draw on established psychological theory and social-science research to begin to chart a path forward. We hope that better understanding of these issues within the field will shed light on areas of existing gender gaps in the discipline and areas where positive change has happened, and spark conversation within our field about how to create lasting change to mitigate remaining gender differences in psychological science.

Correction: Do People Eat the Pain Away? The Effects of Acute Physical Pain on Subsequent Consumption of Sweet-Tasting Food.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0166931.].

Do People Eat the Pain Away? The Effects of Acute Physical Pain on Subsequent Consumption of Sweet-Tasting Food.

Sweet tasting foods have been found to have an analgesic effect. Therefore people might consume more sweet-tasting food when they feel pain. In Study 1, participants were randomly assigned to a pain or non-pain condition and their consumption of cheesecake was measured. Participants ate more cheesecake (a sweet-tasting food) following a painful experience than a non-painful one. In Study 2, participants were randomly assigned to a painful experience or a resource depleting experience (i.e., squeezing a handgrip) and then were asked to taste test two foods, one sweet and one not sweet. Participants ate more sweet-tasting food following a painful experience than a non-painful or a resource-depleting experience. These differences were not present for consumption of non-sweet food. Further, habitual self-control predicted consumption of sweet-tasting food when in pain, with those lower in self-control particularly likely to eat more. Results suggest that people do eat more sweet-tasting food when they feel pain, particularly if they are not in the habit of controlling their impulses. These findings have implications for health given rising rates of obesity and pain-related diagnoses.

Examining Workplace Ostracism Experiences in Academia: Understanding How Differences in the Faculty Ranks Influence Inclusive Climates on Campus.

Research on the retention of women in academia has focused on challenges, including a "chilly climate," devaluation, and incivility. The unique consequences of workplace ostracism - being ignored and excluded by others in an organizational setting - require focus on this experience as another interpersonal challenge for women in academia. The purpose of this study is to examine differences in the faculty experiences and outcomes of workplace ostracism, and to determine if these experiences are affected significantly by the gender composition of an employee's specific department. Participants were recruited at two time points to complete campus climate surveys that were distributed to faculty at a large, public, research university. We examined the number of reported ostracism experiences (Study 1) and perceived information sharing (Study 2) among male and female university faculty. The findings indicated that female faculty members perceived more workplace ostracism than male faculty members. Analyses of department gender ratios suggested that the proportion of women in the department did not reduce the amount of workplace ostracism experienced by women. No gender differences were found in perceived information sharing. However, we found that Faculty of Color, both men and women, reported more frequent information exclusion than White faculty. These results have important implications for theoretical and practical understandings of workplace demography and suggest that it is necessary to look at subtle, ambiguous forms of discrimination in order to increase retention of faculty from underrepresented groups in academia.

Ostracism Reduces Reliance on Poor Advice from Others during Decision Making.

Decision-making is rarely context-free, and often both social information and non-social information are weighed into one's decisions. Incorporating information into a decision can be influenced by previous experiences. Ostracism has extensive effects, including taxing cognitive resources and increasing social monitoring. In decision-making situations, individuals are often faced with both objective and social information and must choose which information to include or filter out. How will ostracism affect the reliance on objective and social information during decision-making? Participants (N=245) in Experiment 1 were randomly assigned to be included or ostracized in a standardized, group task. They then performed a dynamic decision-making task that involved the presentation of either non-social (i.e. biased reward feedback) or social (i.e., poor advice from a previous participant) misleading information. In Experiment 2, participants (N=105) completed either the ostracism non-social condition or social misleading information condition with explicit instructions stating that the advice given was from an individual who did not partake in the group task. Ostracized individuals relied more on non-social misleading information and performed worse than included individuals. However, ostracized individuals discounted misleading social information and outperformed included individuals. Results of Experiment 2 replicated the findings of Experiment 1. Across two experiments, ostracized individuals were more critical of advice from others, both individuals who may have ostracized them and unrelated individuals. In other words, compared to included individuals, ostracized individuals underweighted advice from another individual, but overweighted non-social information during decision-making. We conclude that when deceptive objective information is present, ostracism results in disadvantageous decision-making.