Deportation threat predicts Latino US citizens and noncitizens' psychological distress, 2011 to 2018.

The national context of deportation threat, defined as the federal government's approach to deportation and/or deportation's salience to the US public, fluctuated between 2011 and 2018. US Latinos across citizenship statuses may have experienced growing psychological distress associated with these changes, given their disproportionate personal or proximal vulnerabilities to deportation. Drawing on 8 y of public- and restricted-access data from the National Health Interview Survey (2011 to 2018), this article examines trends in psychological distress among Latinos who are US-born citizens, naturalized citizens, and noncitizens. It then seeks to explain these trends by considering two theoretical pathways through which the national context of deportation threat could distress Latinos: 1) through discrete dramatic societal events that independently signal a change to the country's approach to deportation and/or that render deportation temporarily more salient to the public or 2) through more gradual changes to the country's everyday institutional (i.e., quotidian efforts to detain and deport noncitizens) and social (i.e., deportation's ongoing salience to a concerned public) environment of deportation threat. We find that, though both pathways matter to some degree, there is more consistent evidence that the gradual changes are associated with Latino US citizens and noncitizens' overall experiences of psychological distress. The article highlights how, even absent observable spillover effects of dramatic societal events bearing on deportation threat, the institutional and social environment in which they occur implicates Latinos' well-being.

Power to Detect What? Considerations for Planning and Evaluating Sample Size.

ACADEMIC ABSTRACT: In the wake of the replication crisis, social and personality psychologists have increased attention to power analysis and the adequacy of sample sizes. In this article, we analyze current controversies in this area, including choosing effect sizes, why and whether power analyses should be conducted on already-collected data, how to mitigate the negative effects of sample size criteria on specific kinds of research, and which power criterion to use. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings), given the limitations of interest-based minimums or field-wide effect sizes. We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology. PUBLIC ABSTRACT: Recently, social-personality psychology has been criticized for basing some of its conclusions on studies with low numbers of participants. As a result, power analysis, a mathematical way to ensure that a study has enough participants to reliably "detect" a given size of psychological effect, has become popular. This article describes power analysis and discusses some controversies about it, including how researchers should derive assumptions about effect size, and how the requirements of power analysis can be applied without harming research on hard-to-reach and marginalized communities. For novel research questions, we advocate that researchers base sample sizes on effects that are likely to be cost-effective for other people to implement (in applied settings) or to study (in basic research settings). We discuss two alternatives to power analysis, precision analysis and sequential analysis, and end with recommendations for improving the practices of researchers, reviewers, and journal editors in social-personality psychology.

Identities, drinking behaviors and cancer beliefs among African-American and White American adults: A qualitative analysis.

BACKGROUND: Alcohol consumption is causally linked to multiple cancers. African-Americans are at greater risk of cancer than other demographic groups and suffer more serious consequences. Awareness and knowledge of the alcohol-cancer link are low, especially among African-Americans compared to other racial/ethnic groups. This study built on the theory of identity-based motivation (TIBM) to explore how people think about alcohol consumption in relation to their social identities and beliefs about cancer. METHODS: Data come from 20 in-depth interviews with current drinkers (10 White and 10 African-American adults) in a major mid-Atlantic city in the summer of 2021, using race- and gender-concordant interviewers. An abductive and iterative approach identified salient themes about how drinkers thought about alcohol, social identities, and cancer. RESULTS: While most participants discussed alcohol use as an important part of American culture, African-American participants were more likely to discuss drinking as a way to cope with racism and other hardships. Participants also noted the need to address structural issues that would make it difficult to cut back on drinking. Both White and African-American participants talked about stressors in life that drive them to drink and make cutting back difficult, and African-American participants discussed how the location of liquor stores in their neighborhoods made alcohol too readily available. CONCLUSIONS: Insights from these interviews confirm the relevance of racial and other identities in shaping responses to alcohol-cancer messaging, and emphasize the need to consider both behavior change and policy change to create supportive environments for such changes.

Climate change and health equity: A research agenda for psychological science.

Climate change poses unique and substantial threats to public health and well-being, from heat stress, flooding, and the spread of infectious disease to food and water insecurity, conflict, displacement, and direct health hazards linked to fossil fuels. These threats are especially acute for frontline communities. Addressing climate change and its unequal impacts requires psychologists to consider temporal and spatial dimensions of health, compound risks, as well as structural sources of vulnerability implicated by few other public health challenges. In this review, we consider climate change as a unique context for the study of health inequities and the roles of psychologists and health care practitioners in addressing it. We conclude by discussing the research infrastructure needed to broaden current understanding of these inequities, including new cross-disciplinary, institutional, and community partnerships, and offer six practical recommendations for advancing the psychological study of climate health equity and its societal relevance. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2023 APA, all rights reserved).

Strategic Messaging to Promote Policies that Advance Racial Equity: What Do We Know, and What Do We Need to Learn?

Policy Points Many studies have explored the impact of message strategies to build support for policies that advance racial equity, but few studies examine the effects of richer stories of lived experience and detailed accounts of the ways racism is embedded in policy design and implementation. Longer messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity hold significant potential to enhance support for policies to advance racial equity. There is an urgent need to develop, test, and disseminate communication interventions that center perspectives from historically marginalized people and promote policy advocacy, community mobilization, and collective action to advance racial equity. CONTEXT: Long-standing racial inequities in health and well-being are shaped by racialized public policies that perpetuate disadvantage among Black, Brown, Indigenous, and people of color. Strategic messaging can accelerate public and policymaker support for public policies that advance population health. We lack a comprehensive understanding of lessons learned from work on policy messaging to advance racial equity and the gaps in knowledge it reveals. METHODS: A scoping review of peer-reviewed studies from communication, psychology, political science, sociology, public health, and health policy that have tested how various message strategies influence support and mobilization for racial equity policy domains across a wide variety of social systems. We used keyword database searches, author bibliographic searches, and reviews of reference lists from relevant sources to compile 55 peer-reviewed papers with 80 studies that used experiments to test the effects of one or more message strategies in shaping support for racial equity-related policies, as well as the cognitive/emotional factors that predict their support. FINDINGS: Most studies report on the short-term effects of very short message manipulations. Although many of these studies find evidence that reference to race or use of racial cues tend to undermine support for racial equity-related policies, the accumulated body of evidence has generally not explored the effects of richer, more nuanced stories of lived experience and/or detailed historical and contemporary accounts of the ways racism is embedded in public policy design and implementation. A few well-designed studies offer evidence that longer-form messages framed to emphasize social and structural causes of racial inequity can enhance support for policies to advance racial equity, though many questions require further research. CONCLUSIONS: We conclude by laying out a research agenda to fill numerous wide gaps in the evidentiary base related to building support for racial equity policy across sectors.

Social Media Campaigns to Influence Alcohol Consumption and Related Harms, Attitudes, and Awareness: A Systematic Review.

OBJECTIVE: Given social media's reach and potential, a systematic review is needed to assess their effectiveness in influencing alcohol consumption and related harms, attitudes, and awareness. METHOD: We searched 12 databases from inception to December 2022, along with reference lists of eligible studies. We included studies of any design conducted in any country, reported in English, evaluating campaigns using social media alone or in combination with other media. We assessed study quality, extracted data, and completed a narrative synthesis. RESULTS: Eleven of 6,442 unique studies met inclusion criteria, spanning 17 countries, targeting diverse populations, and predominantly using repeated cross-sectional study designs. Most were of weak quality. Only three studies evaluated campaigns relying solely or primarily on social media. Two drink-driving campaigns had no behavioral impact, whereas two others found behavior change. Two of three studies targeting college student drinking found significant reductions in drinking after the campaign, but a third detected no differences in quality or duration of drinking. Only one study measured changes in attitudes, finding that the campaign significantly increased policy support for key alcohol policies. All studies noted awareness, but only six quantified short-term measures, showing increased campaign awareness. CONCLUSIONS: It is unclear from the peer-reviewed literature whether public health-oriented social media campaigns can influence alcohol consumption and related harms, attitudes, and/or awareness. Our review nevertheless indicates that social media campaigns offer potential in some populations to influence these outcomes. There is an urgent need for the public health field to test and rigorously evaluate social media's utility as a vehicle for influencing population-level alcohol consumption and related problems, attitudes, and awareness.

Local TV News Coverage of Racial Disparities in COVID-19 During the First Wave of the Pandemic, March-June 2020.

The COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted health and social outcomes for people of color in the United States. This study examined how local TV news stories attributed causes and solutions for COVID-19-related racial health and social disparities, and whether coverage of such disparities changed after George Floyd's murder, during the first wave of the COVID-19 pandemic. We systematically validated keywords to extract relevant news content and conducted a content analysis of 169 discrete local TV news stories aired between March and June 2020 from 80 broadcast networks within 22 purposefully selected media markets. We found that social determinants of COVID-19 related racial disparities have been part of the discussion in local TV news, but racism as a public health crisis was rarely mentioned. Coverage of racial disparities focused far more attention on physical health outcomes than broader social impacts. Stories cited more structural factors than individual factors, as causes of these disparities. After the murder of George Floyd, stories were more likely to mention Black and Latinx people than other populations impacted by COVID-19. Only 9% of local news stories referenced racism, and stories referenced politicians more frequently than public health experts.

How Do People Come to Judge What Is "Reasonable"? Effects of Legal and Sociological Systems on Human Psychology.

How do people decide what is reasonable? People often have to make those judgments, judgments that can influence tremendously consequential decisions-such as whether to indict someone in a legal proceeding. In this article, we take a situated cognition lens to review and integrate findings from social psychology, judgment and decision-making, communication, law, and sociology to generate a new framework for conceptualizing judgments of reasonableness and their implications for how people make decisions, particularly in the context of the legal system. We theorize that differences in structural and social contexts create information asymmetries that shape people's priors about what is and is not reasonable and how they update their priors in the face of new information. We use the legal system as a context for exploring the implications of the framework for both individual and collective decision-making and for considering the practical implications of the framework for inequities in law and social policy.

What would make cognitive science more useful?

What would make cognitive science more useful? In this essay, I argue that the cognitive sciences could advance theories and be more useful to society if they devoted more effort to conducting research in ways that include a more diverse set of participants and stakeholders than they have historically.

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 We Report the Information That Is Necessary to Give Psychology Away? A Scoping Review of the Psychological Intervention Literature 2000-2018.

Psychologists are spending a considerable amount of time researching and developing interventions in hopes that their efforts can help to tackle some of society's pressing problems. Unfortunately, those hopes are often not realized-many interventions are developed and reported in journals but do not make their way into the broader world they were designed to change. One potential reason for this is that there may be a gap between the information reported in articles and the information others, such as practitioners, need to implement the findings. We explored this possibility in the current article. We conducted a scoping review to assess the extent to which the information needed for implementation is reported in psychological intervention articles. Results suggest psychological intervention articles report, at most, 64% of the information needed to implement interventions. We discuss the implications of this for both psychological theories and applying them in the world.

Changing Perceptions around Nontraditional Career Trajectories in Psychological Science.

In a tightening job market, early-career researchers may consider employment opportunities outside academia. Yet there is the widespread belief that such employment experience is perceived negatively by academic hiring committees. Changing perceptions and practices around this issue would benefit these researchers and the field of psychology as a whole.

Communicating What We Know and What Isn't So: Science Communication in Psychology.

The field of psychology has a long history of encouraging researchers to disseminate their findings to the broader public. This trend has continued in recent decades in part because of professional psychology organizations reissuing calls to "give psychology away." This recent wave of calls to give psychology away is different because it has been occurring alongside another movement in the field-the credibility revolution in which psychology has been reckoning with metascientific questions about what exactly psychologists know. This creates a dilemma for the modern psychologist: How is one to "give psychology away" if one is unsure about what is known or what one has to give? In the current article, we discuss strategies for navigating this tension by drawing on insights from the interdisciplinary fields of science communication and persuasion and social influence.

What counts as good science? How the battle for methodological legitimacy affects public psychology.

Part of the "boundary work" (Gieryn, 1983) throughout the history of psychology has been to divide the discipline into camps of "basic" and "applied" researchers who take different methodological approaches to construct knowledge. Each "side" has come up with different processes for conceptualizing, constructing, and evaluating the legitimacy of knowledge claims, processes that have implications for applying research insights to practical issues in society. In this article, I review and synthesize research on the history of knowledge construction in both basic and applied psychology, and the implications of their respective methodological practices for their perceived legitimacy. I then discuss how the lessons learned from the past can be leveraged to address the current crisis of confidence in the "credibility revolution" era (Vazire, 2018), as well as the field's perceived legitimacy to external stakeholders. Finally, I end with recommendations for structural changes to improve the credibility and legitimacy of our field's findings as well as their relevance for achieving our public psychology goals. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

The Behavior of Same-Race Others and Its Effects on Black Patients' Attention to Publicly Presented HIV-Prevention Information.

Black Americans make up 13% of the U.S. population, yet account for 54% of HIV deaths and 44% of new HIV diagnoses. Why do Black Americans die from HIV at such a disproportionate rate? In the current study, we asked whether the presence and behavior of in-group peers in public health settings may influence Black Americans' attention to HIV information, given the racialized nature of HIV-stigma in Black American communities. In a quasi-experimental field study conducted in a public health clinic (N = 260), we found that Black patients were less likely to pay attention to HIV-prevention information in the presence of other Black patients, unless those patients were also paying attention to the information. In contrast, Black patients' attention was unaffected by the presence of White patients. We end by discussing the implications of these findings for health communication theories and health practice geared toward reducing racial-health disparities in the United States.