Antiracism and positive intergenerational (infant) outcomes: A county-level examination of low birth weight and infant mortality.

Racism is associated with negative intergenerational (infant) outcomes. That is, racism, both perceived and structural, is linked to critical, immediate, and long-term health factors such as low birth weight and infant mortality. Antiracism-resistance to racism such as support for the Black Lives Matter (BLM) movement-has been linked to positive emotional, subjective, and mental health outcomes among adults and adolescents. To theoretically build on and integrate such past findings, the present research asked whether such advantageous health correlations might extend intergenerationally to infant outcomes? It examined a theoretical/correlational process model in which mental and physical health indicators might be indirectly related to associations between antiracism and infant health outcomes. Analyses assessed county-level data that measured BLM support (indexed as volume of BLM marches) and infant outcomes from 2014 to 2020. As predicted, in the tested model, BLM support was negatively correlated with 1) low birth weight (Ncounties = 1,445) and 2) mortalities (Ncounties = 409) among African American infants. Given salient, intergroup, policy debates tied to antiracism, the present research also examined associations among White Americans. In the tested model, BLM marches were not meaningfully related to rates of low birth weight among White American infants (Ncounties = 2,930). However, BLM support was negatively related to mortalities among White American infants (Ncounties = 862). Analyses controlled for structural indicators of income inequality, implicit/explicit bias, voting behavior, prior low birth weight/infant mortality rates, and demographic characteristics. Theory/applied implications of antiracism being linked to nonnegative and positive infant health associations tied to both marginalized and dominant social groups are discussed.

The benefits of difference-education interventions in lower-resourced institutions.

Difference-education is an intervention that addresses psychological barriers that can undermine the academic performance of first-generation college students (i.e., those who have parents without 4-year degrees). Difference-education interventions improve first-generation students' performance by empowering them to navigate higher education environments more effectively. They also improve students' comfort with social group difference. However, these benefits have only been documented in higher-resourced institutions. The present research asks two questions about whether these benefits also extend to lower-resourced institutions-that is, schools with fewer resources to invest in students than the universities where prior difference-education interventions were delivered. First, is difference-education effective in improving first-generation students' academic performance in lower-resourced institutions, and does it do so by increasing empowerment? Second, does difference-education improve comfort with social group difference in lower-resourced institutions, and is it unique in its ability to do so? With students from four lower-resourced institutions, we examined these questions by comparing the results of a difference-education intervention to a control condition and social-belonging intervention. We found that while some benefits of difference-education interventions extend to lower-resourced institutions, others do not. First, like prior interventions, difference-education improves first-generation students' academic performance and comfort with social group difference. Unlike prior interventions, these effects did not persist beyond the first term and students' academic performance benefits were not explained by empowerment. We also found partial evidence that the benefits for comfort with social group difference were unique compared to a social-belonging intervention. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

Racism hurts, can antiracism heal?: Positive mental health correlates of antiracist engagement.

Racism can hurt by negatively impacting mental health. For instance, large-scale events tied to racism like the May 2020 police-involved murder of George Floyd have been linked to poor mental health indicators (e.g. depression and anxiety). Notably, racism can spark antiracist engagement-support for addressing systemic racism. For example, Floyd's murder sparked unprecedented antiracist engagement, including heightened Black Lives Matter (BLM) support and protest participation. The present research explored the potential that antiracist engagement can heal: be positively associated with well-being. First, study 1 found that state-level BLM engagement (i.e. protest numbers, antiracism information-seeking on Google/YouTube) during an 8-week period following Floyd's death was associated with positive mental health indicators (i.e. lower depression and anxiety, higher self-rated health). It found these effects among racial/ethnic minorities (e.g. Black/African Americans, Hispanics, N = 161,359) and Whites (N = 516,002). Then, study 2 examined social media data (i.e. tweets) and emotional well-being. It used a measure of happiness indexed across 144,649,285,571 tweets from 2019 through 2021. It found a positive correlation between the volume of tweets with antiracist engagement content (e.g. referenced efforts to address systemic racism) and the happiness measure. Finally, study 3 examined antiracism protest data/information-seeking and a sample of BLM tweets (N = 100,321) posted between April and July 2020. Conceptually replicating studies 1-2, study 3 found that antiracist engagement was associated with greater positive emotion/sentiment (e.g. happiness) relative to negative emotion/sentiment (e.g. anxiety). Relevant to theory and policy, the observed results suggest that antiracist engagement can be associated with benefits for well-being across racial/ethnic groups.

Twin pandemics, intertwined (intergroup) solutions: Support for mitigating racism benefits vaccine hesitancy.

The present research examines the potential that support for efforts aimed at mitigating systemic racism might have beneficial consequences related to vaccination attitudes (e.g., vaccine willingness). Specifically, the present research examines the hypothesis that Black Lives Matter (BLM) support is related to reduced vaccine hesitancy, and that prosocial intergroup attitudes are a theoretical mechanism. It tests these predictions across social group lines. Study 1 examined state-level indicators tied to BLM protests and discourse (i.e., Google searches, news reports) and COVID-19 vaccine attitudes among US adult racial/ethnic minority (N = 81,868) and White (N = 223,353) respondents. Then, Study 2 investigated, respondent-level, BLM support (measured at time 1) and general vaccine attitudes (measured at time 2) among US adult racial/ethnic minority (N = 1,756) and White (N = 4,994) respondents. It tested a theoretical process model that included prosocial intergroup attitudes as a mediator. Study 3 tested a replication of the theoretical mediation model using a different sample of US adult racial/ethnic minority (N = 2,931) and White (N = 6,904) respondents. Across studies and social groups (i.e., racial/ethnic minority and White respondents), as well as controlling for demographic and structural covariates, BLM support and state-level indicators were found to be related to lower vaccine hesitancy. And, Studies 2-3 provided some evidence that prosocial intergroup attitudes are a theoretical mechanism; the studies provided evidence of partial mediation. Holistically, the findings have the potential to advance understandings of how support and discourse related to BLM and/or other anti-racism efforts can be associated with positive public health outcomes such as reductions in vaccine hesitancy.

Racialized Perceptions of Vegetarianism: Stereotypical Associations That Undermine Inclusion in Eating Behaviors.

Shifting societal eating patterns toward a vegetarian diet offers promise for improving public health and environmental sustainability. Yet concerns exist about racial disparities in inclusion, as some sentiments suggest that vegetarianism is stereotypically associated with Whiteness. Through four studies (total N = 3,234), we investigated associations U.S. adults hold between race and vegetarianism, along with implications for behavior change and belongingness among Black individuals. Participants, across racial backgrounds, strongly associated vegetarianism with Whiteness, both explicitly and implicitly. A race prime led Black participants to report lower interest in becoming a vegetarian, whereas a prime of race-vegetarianism associations decreased Black participants' feelings of belongingness in the vegetarian community. Exposure to racially inclusive messaging about vegetarianism, meanwhile, increased belongingness among Black participants. These findings provide the first quantitative insights into racial stereotypes about vegetarianism and pose future directions for theory, research, and practice at the intersections of race and eating behavior.

Psychological Science in the Wake of COVID-19: Social, Methodological, and Metascientific Considerations.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic's wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon-an event that hinges on human-to-human contact-we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger-not weaker-in its wake.

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.

"Pride and prejudice" pathways to belonging: Implications for inclusive diversity practices within mainstream institutions.

Within mainstream institutions such as colleges and universities, scientists and social leaders, alike, are faced with persistent and new challenges to forging paths toward inclusion among marginalized group members (e.g., Latino/a/x and African Americans). Integrating theoretical perspectives that conceptualize identity among marginalized groups as tied to culture and strengths with literatures on threat and stigma, we propose a "pride and prejudice" approach to inclusion. We provide support for the efficacy of inclusion as 2 pathways-one route that is associated with recognizing "pride" or the history and culture of marginalized groups and another that is related to reducing "prejudice" or perceived discrimination toward marginalized groups. Specifically, we demonstrate using actual demands for inclusion generated by students attending 80 colleges and universities that a pride and prejudice approach is consistent with collective calls for institutional change voiced by marginalized group members and their allies (Study 1). Then, Study 2, using longitudinal data of Latino/a/x and African American students (N = 1,967) attending 27 colleges and universities we reveal the impact of pride (e.g., taking an ethnic studies course) and prejudice (e.g., perceived discrimination) experiences on sense of belonging, and in turn academic and health outcomes (e.g., graduation rates, depression). We provide evidence for 1 theory-based process whereby individual experiences tied to pride and prejudice can impact belongingness through intragroup and intergroup relations. Theory and policy implications for institutional inclusion efforts including the importance of fostering ties to ingroup and outgoup members are discussed. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Class advantages and disadvantages are not so Black and White: intersectionality impacts rank and selves.

At the intersection of race and class the consequences of being working-class or middle-class are not so Black and White. Rather, established and emerging research suggests that race/ethnicity and social class intersect to differentially afford benefits and burdens. For instance, racial/ethnic minorities often do not reap the social, psychological or economic benefits of higher social class; yet, in some key life domains (e.g. health and mortality) racial/ethnic minorities in the U.S. seem to be buffered from some burdens of lower social class. We integrate empirical evidence to suggest that such differential advantages and disadvantages along racial lines reflect that social class exists alongside, rather than separate from, race/ethnicity as two distinct yet intersecting sources of rank and in turn selves.

"Two souls, two thoughts," two self-schemas: double consciousness can have positive academic consequences for African Americans.

African Americans can experience a double consciousness-the two-ness of being an American and an African American. The present research hypothesized that: (a) double consciousness can function as 2 self-schemas-an independent self-schema tied to mainstream American culture and an interdependent self-schema tied to African American culture, and (b) U.S. educational settings can leverage an interdependent self-schema associated with African American culture through inclusive multicultural practices to facilitate positive academic consequences. First, a pilot experiment and Studies 1 and 2 provided evidence that double consciousness can be conceptualized as 2 self-schemas. That is, African Americans shifted their behavior (e.g., cooperation) in schema-relevant ways from more independent when primed with mainstream American culture to more interdependent when primed with African American culture. Then, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that incorporating African American culture within a university setting enhanced African Americans' persistence and performance on academic-relevant tasks. Finally, using the Gates Millennium Scholars dataset (Cohort 1), Study 5 conceptually replicated Studies 3 and 4 and provided support for one process that underlies the observed positive academic consequences. Specifically, Study 5 provided evidence that engagement with African American culture (e.g., involvement with cultural events/groups) on college campuses makes an interdependent self-schema more salient that increases African American students' sense of academic fit and identification, and, in turn, enhances academic performance (self-reported grades) and persistence (advanced degree enrollment in a long-term follow-up). The discussion examines double consciousness as a basic psychological phenomenon and suggests the intra- and intergroup benefits of inclusive multicultural settings.

Enacting cultural interests: how intergroup contact reduces prejudice by sparking interest in an out-group's culture.

In the present research, we examined the hypothesis that cues of social connectedness to a member of another social group can spark interest in the group's culture, and that such interest, when freely enacted, contributes to reductions in intergroup prejudice. In two pilot studies and Experiment 1, we found that extant and desired cross-group friendships and cues of social connectedness to an out-group member predicted increased interest in the target group's culture. In Experiments 2 and 3, we manipulated cues of social connectedness between non-Latino American participants and a Latino American (i.e., Mexican American) peer and whether participants freely worked with this peer on a Mexican cultural task. This experience reduced the participants' implicit bias against Latinos, an effect that was mediated by increased cultural engagement, and, 6 months later in an unrelated context, improved intergroup outcomes (e.g., interest in interacting with Mexican Americans; Experiment 4). The Discussion section addresses the inter- and intragroup benefits of policies that encourage people to express and share diverse cultural interests in mainstream settings.