The Maintenance of the U.S. Racial Hierarchy Through Judgments of Multiracial People Based on Proximity to Whiteness.

Previous research has argued that a growing multiracial population will blur boundaries between racial groups, reducing racism and improving interracial relations. However, this is unlikely to happen if multiracial groups are judged according to their proximity to Whiteness. We examined how having White ancestry shapes status perceptions of multiracial groups. Studies 1 and 2 showed that multiracial groups with White ancestry (e.g., Black/White) are considered higher status than dual minority multiracial (e.g., Black/Latinx) and monoracial minority (e.g., Black) groups. Study 3 revealed that multiracial groups with White ancestry are perceived as more competent and warmer than monoracial minority and dual minority multiracial groups, leading to higher status perceptions for multiracial groups with White ancestry. Thus, multiracial people, like other racial minorities, may be judged according to White, Eurocentric standards. The results imply that, without anti-racist intervention, the treatment of multiracial people will reinforce, rather than challenge, the existing racial hierarchy.

The unbearable limitations of solo science: Team science as a path for more rigorous and relevant research.

Both early social psychologists and the modern, interdisciplinary scientific community have advocated for diverse team science. We echo this call and describe three common pitfalls of solo science illustrated by the target article. We discuss how a collaborative and inclusive approach to science can both help researchers avoid these pitfalls and pave the way for more rigorous and relevant research.

The Pandemic as a Portal: Reimagining Psychological Science as Truly Open and Inclusive.

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists-focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations-to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Do emotions predict eating? The role of previous experiences in emotional eating in the lab and in daily life.

Emotional eating is defined as an increase in eating following negative emotion. Self-reported emotional eating has been associated with physical health concerns. However, experimental and daily diary studies indicate that induced or naturally experienced negative emotions do not reliably lead to increased eating behavior in people without eating disorders, not even among self-professed emotional eaters. Emotional eating may depend on associations people have made between specific emotions and eating. We describe a set of studies with the overarching goal of determining whether accounting for the variation in people's associations between eating and different discrete emotions is the key to observing emotional eating. In both Study 1 (N = 118) and 2 (N = 111), we asked people to report on their tendency to eat following sadness and anxiety and determined how much they ate when induced to feel sad or anxious in the lab (Study 1) or experiencing these emotions in daily life (Study 2). We found no support for our hypotheses in either study; self-professed sad- or anxious-eaters did not eat more when induced to experience these emotions in the lab, or when experiencing these emotions in daily life. Thus, accounting for the variation in people's associations between eating and two discrete emotions, sadness and anxiety, is not the key to observing sad or anxious eating behavior in the lab or in daily life. Preregistration, materials, data, and code: https://osf.io/kcqej/ (Study 1) and https://osf.io/3euvg/ (Study 2).

Theory of Prejudice and American Identity Threat Transfer for Latino and Asian Americans.

Latinos and Asian Americans confront similar stereotypes as they are often presumed to be foreigners and subjected to American identity denial. Across six studies (total N = 992), we demonstrate that Latinos and Asians anticipate ingroup prejudice and specific types of subordination (e.g., American identity threat) in the face of outgroup threats that target one another (i.e., stigma transfer). The studies explore whether stigma transfer occurred primarily when shared Latino and Asian stereotype content was a salient component of the prejudice remark (e.g., foreigner stereotypes; Study 3), or when outgroup prejudice targeted a social group with shared stereotype content (Study 4), though neither appeared to substantively moderate stigma transfer. Minority group members who conceptualize prejudiced people as holding multiple biases (i.e., a monolithic prejudice theory) were more susceptible to stigma transfer suggesting that stereotype content is not necessary for stigma transfer because people assume that prejudice is not singular.

Understanding the Uncanny: Both Atypical Features and Category Ambiguity Provoke Aversion toward Humanlike Robots.

Robots intended for social contexts are often designed with explicit humanlike attributes in order to facilitate their reception by (and communication with) people. However, observation of an "uncanny valley"-a phenomenon in which highly humanlike entities provoke aversion in human observers-has lead some to caution against this practice. Both of these contrasting perspectives on the anthropomorphic design of social robots find some support in empirical investigations to date. Yet, owing to outstanding empirical limitations and theoretical disputes, the uncanny valley and its implications for human-robot interaction remains poorly understood. We thus explored the relationship between human similarity and people's aversion toward humanlike robots via manipulation of the agents' appearances. To that end, we employed a picture-viewing task (Nagents = 60) to conduct an experimental test (Nparticipants = 72) of the uncanny valley's existence and the visual features that cause certain humanlike robots to be unnerving. Across the levels of human similarity, we further manipulated agent appearance on two dimensions, typicality (prototypic, atypical, and ambiguous) and agent identity (robot, person), and measured participants' aversion using both subjective and behavioral indices. Our findings were as follows: (1) Further substantiating its existence, the data show a clear and consistent uncanny valley in the current design space of humanoid robots. (2) Both category ambiguity, and more so, atypicalities provoke aversive responding, thus shedding light on the visual factors that drive people's discomfort. (3) Use of the Negative Attitudes toward Robots Scale did not reveal any significant relationships between people's pre-existing attitudes toward humanlike robots and their aversive responding-suggesting positive exposure and/or additional experience with robots is unlikely to affect the occurrence of an uncanny valley effect in humanoid robotics. This work furthers our understanding of both the uncanny valley, as well as the visual factors that contribute to an agent's uncanniness.

Interactive Effects of Obvious and Ambiguous Social Categories on Perceptions of Leadership: When Double-Minority Status May Be Beneficial.

Easily perceived identities (e.g., race) may interact with perceptually ambiguous identities (e.g., sexual orientation) in meaningful but elusive ways. Here, we investigated how intersecting identities impact impressions of leadership. People perceived gay Black men as better leaders than members of either single-minority group (i.e., gay or Black). Yet, different traits supported judgments of the leadership abilities of Black and White targets; for instance, warmth positively predicted leadership judgments for Black men but dominance positively predicted leadership judgments for White men. These differences partly occurred because of different perceptions of masculinity across the intersection of race and sexual orientation. Indeed, both categorical (race and sex) and noncategorical (trait) social information contributed to leadership judgments. These findings highlight differences in the traits associated with leadership in Black and White men, as well as the importance of considering how intersecting cues associated with obvious and ambiguous groups moderate perceptions.

Stigma by Prejudice Transfer: Racism Threatens White Women and Sexism Threatens Men of Color.

In the current research, we posited the stigma-by-prejudice-transfer effect, which proposes that stigmatized group members (e.g., White women) are threatened by prejudice that is directed at other stigmatized group members (e.g., African Americans) because they believe that prejudice has monolithic qualities. While most stigma researchers assume that there is a direct correspondence between the attitude of prejudiced individuals and the targets (i.e., sexism affects women, racism affects racial minorities), the five studies reported here demonstrate that White women can be threatened by racism (Study 1, 3, 4, and 5) and men of color by sexism (Study 2). Robust to perceptions of liking and the order in which measures were administered, results showed that prejudice transfers between racism and sexism were driven by the presumed social dominance orientation of the prejudiced individual. In addition, important downstream consequences, such as the increased likelihood of anticipated stigma, expectations of unfair treatment, and the attribution of negative feedback to sexism, appeared for stigmatized individuals.

Organizational Identity Safety Cue Transfers.

Traditionally, researchers have focused on identity-congruent safety cues such as the effect of gender diversity awards on women's sense of inclusion in organizations. The present studies investigate, for the first time, whether identity safety cues (e.g., organizational diversity structures) aimed at one stigmatized group transfer via perceptions of the organization's ideology (social dominance orientation), resulting in identity safety for individuals with stigmatized identities incongruent with the cue. Across four studies, we demonstrate that White women experience identity safety from organizational diversity structures aimed at racial minorities (Studies 1 and 2), and men of color experience identity safety from organizational diversity structures aimed at women (Study 3). Furthermore, while White men similarly perceive the organization's ideology, this does not promote identity safety (Study 4). Thus, we argue that individuals view organizations commended for diversity as promoting more egalitarian attitudes broadly, resulting in the transference of identity safety cues for stigmatized individuals.

Folk beliefs about genetic variation predict avoidance of biracial individuals.

People give widely varying estimates for the amount of genetic overlap that exists between humans. While some laypeople believe that humans are highly genetically similar to one another, others believe that humans share very little genetic overlap. These studies examine how beliefs about genetic overlap affect neural and evaluative reactions to racially-ambiguous and biracial targets. In Study 1, we found that lower genetic overlap estimates predicted a stronger neural avoidance response to biracial compared to monoracial targets. In Study 2, we found that lower genetic overlap estimates predicted longer response times to classify biracial (vs. monoracial) faces into racial categories. In Study 3, we manipulated genetic overlap beliefs and found that participants in the low overlap condition explicitly rated biracial targets more negatively than those in the high overlap condition. Taken together, these data suggest that genetic overlap beliefs influence perceivers' processing fluency and evaluation of biracial and racially-ambiguous individuals.

Finally, someone who "gets" me! Multiracial people value others' accuracy about their race.

Monoracial people typically encounter correct views about their race from others. Multiracial people, however, encounter different views about their race depending on the situation. As a result, multiracial (but not monoracial) people may regard race as a less visible aspect of the self that they hope others will verify during social interactions. Multiracial people should therefore value others' accuracy about their race more than monoracial people. In Study 1, multiracial and monoracial participants expected to meet a partner who was accurate or confused about their racial backgrounds. Multiracial (but not monoracial) participants reported heightened interest in interacting with an accurate partner. In Study 2, multiracial (but not monoracial) participants perceived accurate partners as more likely than confused partners to fulfill their needs for self-verification during an interaction. Increased expectations for self-verification, moreover, explained multiracial (but not monoracial) participants' heightened interest in interacting with accurate partners. The results suggest that multiracial (but not monoracial) people view race as an aspect of the self (like personality traits or values) requiring verification from others during interactions.