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.

Warmth Trumps Competence in Evaluations of Both Ingroup and Outgroup.

Research from a number of social psychological traditions suggests that social perceivers should be more concerned with evaluating others' intentions (i.e., warmth) relative to evaluating others' ability to act on those intentions (i.e., competence). The present research examined whether warmth evaluations have cognitive primacy over competence evaluations in a direct reaction-time comparison and whether the effect is moderated by ingroup versus outgroup membership. Participants evaluated as quickly as possible whether warmth versus competence traits described photographs of racial ingroup versus outgroup members expressing neutral emotions. Responses supported the hypothesis that evaluations of warmth take precedence over evaluations of competence; participants were faster to evaluate others on warmth-related traits compared to competence-related traits. Moreover, this primacy effect was not moderated by racial group membership. The data from this research speak to the robustness of the primacy of warmth in social evaluation.

Gender differences in automatic in-group bias: why do women like women more than men like men?

Four experiments confirmed that women's automatic in-group bias is remarkably stronger than men's and investigated explanations for this sex difference, derived from potential sources of implicit attitudes (L. A. Rudman, 2004). In Experiment 1, only women (not men) showed cognitive balance among in-group bias, identity, and self-esteem (A. G. Greenwald et al., 2002), revealing that men lack a mechanism that bolsters automatic own group preference. Experiments 2 and 3 found pro-female bias to the extent that participants automatically favored their mothers over their fathers or associated male gender with violence, suggesting that maternal bonding and male intimidation influence gender attitudes. Experiment 4 showed that for sexually experienced men, the more positive their attitude was toward sex, the more they implicitly favored women. In concert, the findings help to explain sex differences in automatic in-group bias and underscore the uniqueness of gender for intergroup relations theorists.