Interdependent behavior only benefits employees from working-class backgrounds when it is both enacted and valued.

Social class disparities are pervasive in American society. In higher education, one critical driver of these disparities is the cultural mismatch between the interdependent norms of people from working-class backgrounds and the independent norms that pervade higher education. However, after graduating from college and entering white-collar workplaces, people from working-class backgrounds have frequent opportunities to collaborate in teams-that is, to enact interdependent behavior. Do these opportunities reduce cultural mismatch for people from working-class backgrounds? Across two survey studies and two experiments with college-educated U.S. employees (total N = 2,566), we find that they do not. We theorize and document that this is because there is often a decoupling between enacting interdependent behavior and whether such behavior is valued as part of being a "good" employee. We find that employees from working-class backgrounds only experience a cultural match and its benefits (e.g., sense of fit, high retention intentions) when interdependent behaviors are both enacted and valued. In contrast, when interdependent behaviors are enacted but not valued, employees from working-class backgrounds experience a cultural mismatch. Furthermore, we find that this pattern is unique to employees from working-class backgrounds: Employees from middle-class backgrounds report similar fit and retention regardless of whether there is a coupling of enacted and valued interdependent behavior. Taken together, our results suggest that it is critical to examine multiple elements of culture simultaneously (e.g., both enacted and valued behavior) to fully understand and predict the consequences of cultural (mis)match. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2024 APA, all rights reserved).

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).

Is diversity enough? Cross-race and cross-class interactions in college occur less often than expected, but benefit members of lower status groups when they occur.

More than ever before, institutions of higher education are seeking to increase the racial and social class diversity of their student bodies. Given these efforts, the present research asks two broad questions. First, how frequently do intergroup interactions occur across the lines of race and social class, and to what extent do these interactions reflect the diversity of a setting? Second, when cross-race and cross-class interactions occur, how do individuals experience them and what consequences do they have for their outcomes in these settings? Leveraging a longitudinal design and daily diary methods, we conducted the first large study (Ninteractions = 11,460) which tracks the frequency, experience, and consequences of meaningful cross-race and cross-class interactions. We found that students reported far fewer cross-race and cross-class interactions than would occur at chance given the racial and social class diversity of their student bodies. Furthermore, students experienced less satisfaction and perspective-taking in cross-race and cross-class interactions compared to same-race and same-class interactions, respectively. Nevertheless, these cross-group interactions predicted better academic performance for underrepresented racial minority students and students from working and lower class backgrounds. They did so, in part, by increasing students' feelings of inclusion (i.e., increased belonging and reduced social identity threat). Together, these findings suggest that the mere presence of diversity is not enough to foster meaningful intergroup interactions. Furthermore, fostering intergroup interactions may be one important pathway toward reducing racial and social class disparities. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

What's in a Name? The Hidden Historical Ideologies Embedded in the Black and African American Racial Labels.

History can inconspicuously repeat itself through words and language. We explored the association between the "Black" and "African American" racial labels and the ideologies of the historical movements within which they gained prominence (Civil Rights and Black Power, respectively). Two content analyses and two preregistered experimental studies (N = 1,204 White American adults) show that the associations between "Black" and "bias and discrimination" and between "African American" and "civil rights and equality" are evident in images, op-eds, and perceptions of organizations. Google Images search results for "Black people" evoke more racially victimized imagery than search results for "African American people" (Study 1), and op-eds that use the Black label contain more bias and discrimination content than those that use the African American label (Study 2). Finally, White Americans infer the ideologies of organizations by the racial label within the organization's name (Studies 3 and 4). Consequently, these inferences guide the degree to which Whites support the organization financially.

Difference-Education Improves First-Generation Students' Grades Throughout College and Increases Comfort With Social Group Difference.

Difference-education interventions teach people a contextual theory of difference: that social group difference comes from participating in and adapting to diverse sociocultural contexts. At two universities, we delivered difference-education interventions during the college transition and examined long-term academic and intergroup outcomes. Nearly 4 years later, first-generation students who received a difference-education intervention earned higher grades and were more likely to attain honors standing than those in the control condition. Based on an end-of-college survey with students at one of the two universities, both first-generation and continuing-generation students showed greater comfort with social group difference compared with students in the control condition. Our results demonstrate for the first time that teaching first-generation students a contextual theory of difference can lead to long-term academic benefits that persist until graduation. This work also provides new evidence that difference-education can improve comfort with social group difference.

Achievement is not class-neutral: Working together benefits people from working-class contexts.

Previous research has documented that people from working-class contexts have fewer skills linked to academic success than their middle-class counterparts (e.g., worse problem-solving skills). Challenging this idea, we propose that one reason why people from working-class contexts underperform is because U.S. measures of achievement tend to assess people individually. We theorize that working together on measures of achievement will create a cultural match with the interdependent selves common among people from working-class contexts, therefore improving their sense of fit and performance. We further theorize that effective group processes will serve as a mechanism that helps to explain when and why working together affords these benefits. Four studies utilizing diverse methods support our theorizing. Using archival data on college student grades, Study 1 finds that groups with higher proportions of students from working-class contexts perform better. Utilizing a nationally representative sample of collegiate student-athletes, Study 2 suggests that the benefits of working together for people from working-class contexts are moderated by whether groups engage in effective group processes. Studies 3 and 4 demonstrate that working together (vs. individually) causally improves the fit and performance of people from working-class contexts. Study 4 identifies effective group processes as a mediator: People from working-class (vs. middle-class) contexts more frequently engage in effective group processes, thus improving their performance. Our findings suggest that assessing achievement individually is not class-neutral. Instead, assessing achievement in a way that is congruent with interdependent models of self-as people work together-can help realize the full potential of people from working-class contexts. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Access is not enough: Cultural mismatch persists to limit first-generation students' opportunities for achievement throughout college.

United States higher education prioritizes independence as the cultural ideal. As a result, first-generation students (neither parent has a four-year degree) often confront an initial cultural mismatch early on in college settings: they endorse relatively interdependent cultural norms that diverge from the independent cultural ideal. This initial cultural mismatch can lead first-generation students to perform less well academically compared with continuing-generation students (one or more parents have a four-year degree) early in college. Yet, what happens as first-generation students experience the university culture throughout their time in college? Using cross-sectional and longitudinal approaches, we find that initial cultural mismatch is associated with psychological and academic costs that persist until graduation. First, at college entry, we find social class differences in cultural norms: first-generation students endorse more interdependent cultural norms than their continuing-generation peers. Second, endorsing interdependence at college entry predicts reduced subjective sense of fit in college four years later. Third, lower subjective sense of fit predicts lower grade point average and subjective social status upon graduation. Together, these results suggest that initial cultural mismatch contributes to worse experiences and academic outcomes among first-generation students, and that these disparities persist even until graduation. Further, we find that social class differences in cultural norms remain stable throughout college: first-generation students continue to endorse more interdependence than do continuing-generation students. We suggest providing access is not sufficient to reduce social class inequity; colleges need to create more inclusive environments to ensure that students from diverse backgrounds can reap similar rewards. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2020 APA, all rights reserved).

Empowerment Through Difference: An Online Difference-Education Intervention Closes the Social Class Achievement Gap.

A growing body of work suggests that teaching college students a contextual understanding of difference-that students' different experiences in college are the result of participating in different contexts before college-can improve the academic performance of first-generation students (i.e., students whose parents do not have 4-year college degrees). However, only one empirical study, using an in-person panel format, has demonstrated the benefits of this intervention approach. In the present research, we conduct two studies to test the effectiveness of a new difference-education intervention administered online to individual students. In both studies, first-year students read senior students' and recent graduates' stories about how they adjusted to college. In the difference-education condition, stories conveyed a contextual understanding of difference. We found that the online intervention effectively taught students a contextual understanding of difference and closed the social class achievement gap by increasing first-generation students' psychological empowerment and, thereby, end-of-second-year grades.

Difference Matters: Teaching Students a Contextual Theory of Difference Can Help Them Succeed.

Today's increasingly diverse and divided world requires the ability to understand and navigate across social-group differences. We propose that interventions that teach students about these differences can not only improve all students' intergroup skills but also help disadvantaged students succeed in school. Drawing on interdisciplinary research, this article theorizes that teaching students a contextual understanding of difference can accomplish both of these important goals. Understanding difference as contextual means recognizing that social-group differences come from participating in and adapting to diverse sociocultural contexts. This article begins by reviewing research that highlights two distinct understandings of social-group differences-as contextual or essential-and demonstrates their consequences for intergroup outcomes. We then review research on multicultural and social justice education that highlights the potential benefits of educating students about social-group differences. We propose that these educational approaches are associated with intergroup and academic benefits for one key reason: They teach students a contextual theory of difference. Finally, to illustrate and provide causal evidence for our theory of how a contextual understanding of difference affords these benefits, this article provides an overview of the first social psychological intervention to teach students a contextual understanding of difference: difference-education.

Suspicion of Motives Predicts Minorities' Responses to Positive Feedback in Interracial Interactions.

Strong social and legal norms in the United States discourage the overt expression of bias against ethnic and racial minorities, increasing the attributional ambiguity of Whites' positive behavior to ethnic minorities. Minorities who suspect that Whites' positive overtures toward minorities are motivated more by their fear of appearing racist than by egalitarian attitudes may regard positive feedback they receive from Whites as disingenuous. This may lead them to react to such feedback with feelings of uncertainty and threat. Three studies examined how suspicion of motives relates to ethnic minorities' responses to receiving positive feedback from a White peer or same-ethnicity peer (Experiment 1), to receiving feedback from a White peer that was positive or negative (Experiment 2), and to receiving positive feedback from a White peer who did or did not know their ethnicity (Experiment 3). As predicted, the more suspicious Latinas were of Whites' motives for behaving positively toward minorities in general, the more they regarded positive feedback from a White peer who knew their ethnicity as disingenuous and the more they reacted with cardiovascular reactivity characteristic of threat/avoidance, increased feelings of stress, heightened uncertainty, and decreased self-esteem. We discuss the implications for intergroup interactions of perceptions of Whites' motives for nonprejudiced behavior.

A Difference-Education Intervention Equips First-Generation College Students to Thrive in the Face of Stressful College Situations.

A growing social psychological literature reveals that brief interventions can benefit disadvantaged students. We tested a key component of the theoretical assumption that interventions exert long-term effects because they initiate recursive processes. Focusing on how interventions alter students' responses to specific situations over time, we conducted a follow-up lab study with students who had participated in a difference-education intervention 2 years earlier. In the intervention, students learned how their social-class backgrounds mattered in college. The follow-up study assessed participants' behavioral and hormonal responses to stressful college situations. We found that difference-education participants discussed their backgrounds in a speech more frequently than control participants did, an indication that they retained the understanding of how their backgrounds mattered. Moreover, among first-generation students (i.e., students whose parents did not have 4-year degrees), those in the difference-education condition showed greater physiological thriving (i.e., anabolic-balance reactivity) than those in the control condition, which suggests that they experienced their working-class backgrounds as a strength.

Discrimination and the stress response: psychological and physiological consequences of anticipating prejudice in interethnic interactions.

OBJECTIVES: We sought to demonstrate that individuals who anticipate interacting with a prejudiced cross-race/ethnicity partner show an exacerbated stress response, as measured through both self-report and hemodynamic and vascular responses, compared with individuals anticipating interacting with a nonprejudiced cross-race/ethnicity partner. METHODS: Through a questionnaire exchange with a White interaction partner (a confederate) Latina participants learned that their partner had racial/ethnic biased or egalitarian attitudes. Latina participants reported their cognitive and emotional states, and cardiovascular responses were measured while participants prepared and delivered a speech to the White confederate. RESULTS: Participants who believed that their interaction partner held prejudiced attitudes reported greater concern and more threat emotions before the interaction, and more stress after the interaction, and showed greater cardiovascular response than did participants who believed that their partner had egalitarian attitudes. CONCLUSIONS: This study shows that merely anticipating prejudice leads to both psychological and cardiovascular stress responses. These results are consistent with the conceptualization of anticipated discrimination as a stressor and suggest that vigilance for prejudice may be a contributing factor to racial/ethnic health disparities in the United States.

Being mixed: who claims a biracial identity?

What factors determine whether mixed-race individuals claim a biracial identity or a monoracial identity? Two studies examine how two status-related factors-race and social class-influence identity choice. While a majority of mixed-race participants identified as biracial in both studies, those who were members of groups with higher status in American society were more likely than those who were members of groups with lower status to claim a biracial identity. Specifically, (a) Asian/White individuals were more likely than Black/White or Latino/White individuals to identify as biracial and (b) mixed-race people from middle-class backgrounds were more likely than those from working-class backgrounds to identify as biracial. These results suggest that claiming a biracial identity is a choice that is more available to those with higher status.

From "in the air" to "under the skin": cortisol responses to social identity threat.

The authors examined women's neuroendocrine stress responses associated with sexism. They predicted that, when being evaluated by a man, women who chronically perceive more sexism would experience more stress unless the situation contained overt cues that sexism would not occur. The authors measured stress as the end product of the primary stress system linked to social evaluative threat-the hypothalamic-pituitary-adrenal cortical axis. In Study 1, female participants were rejected by a male confederate in favor of another male for sexist reasons or in favor of another female for merit-based reasons. In Study 2, female participants interacted with a male confederate who they learned held sexist attitudes or whose attitudes were unknown. Participants with higher chronic perceptions of sexism had higher cortisol, unless the situation contained cues that sexism was not possible. These results illustrate the powerful interactive effects of chronic perceptions of sexism and situational cues on women's stress reactivity.

Can the absence of prejudice be more threatening than its presence? It depends on one's worldview.

The present research used validated cardiovascular measures to examine threat reactions among members of stigmatized groups when interacting with members of nonstigmatized groups who were, or were not, prejudiced against their group. The authors hypothesized that people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system would moderate their experience of threat during intergroup interactions. The authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the status system is fair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would disconfirm their worldview and result in greater threat. In contrast, the authors predicted that for members of stigmatized groups who believe the system is unfair, interacting with a prejudiced partner, compared with interacting with an unprejudiced partner, would confirm their worldview and result in less threat. The authors examined these predictions among Latinas interacting with a White female confederate (Study 1) and White females interacting with a White male confederate (Study 2). As predicted, people's beliefs about the fairness of the status system moderated their experiences of threat during intergroup interactions, indicated both by cardiovascular responses and nonverbal behavior. The specific pattern of the moderation differed across the 2 studies.

Emotions as within or between people? Cultural variation in lay theories of emotion expression and inference.

Four studies using open-ended and experimental methods test the hypothesis that in Japanese contexts, emotions are understood as between people, whereas in American contexts, emotions are understood as primarily within people. Study 1 analyzed television interviews of Olympic athletes. When asked about their relationships, Japanese athletes used significantly more emotion words than American athletes. This difference was not significant when questions asked directly about athletes' feelings. In Study 2, when describing an athlete's emotional reaction to winning, Japanese participants implicated others more often than American participants. After reading an athlete's self-description, Japanese participants inferred more emotions when the athlete mentioned relationships, whereas American participants inferred more emotions when the athlete focused only on herself (Study 3). Finally, when viewing images of athletes, Japanese participants inferred more emotions for athletes pictured with teammates, whereas American participants inferred more emotions for athletes pictured alone (Studies 4a and 4b).

Choice as an act of meaning: the case of social class.

Social class is one important source of models of agency--normative guidelines for how to be a "good" person. Using choice as a prototypically agentic action, 5 studies test the hypotheses that models of agency prevalent in working-class (WK) contexts reflect a normative preference for similarity to others, whereas models prevalent in middle-class (MD) contexts reflect a preference for difference from others. Focusing on participants' choices, Studies 1 and 2 showed that participants from WK relative to MD contexts more often chose pens that appeared similar to, rather than different from, other pens in the choice set, and more often chose the same images as another participant. Examining participants' responses to others' choices, Studies 3 and 4 demonstrated that participants from WK relative to MD contexts liked their chosen pens more when a confederate chose similarly and responded more positively when a friend chose the same car in a hypothetical scenario. Finally, Study 5 found that car advertisements targeting WK rather than MD consumers more often emphasized connection to, rather than differentiation from, others, suggesting that models of agency are reflected in pervasive cultural products.

Going for the gold. Models of agency in Japanese and American contexts.

Two studies examined how Olympic performance is explained in American and Japanese contexts. Study 1, an analysis of media coverage of the 2000 and 2002 Olympics, shows that in both Japanese and American contexts, performance is construed mainly in terms of the actions of persons. However, Japanese and American accounts differ in their explanations of the nature and source of intentional agency, that is, in their models of agency. In Japanese contexts, agency is construed as conjoint and simultaneously implicates athletes' personal attributes (both positive and negative), background, and social and emotional experience. In American contexts, agency is construed as disjoint, separate from athletes' background or social and emotional experience; performance is explained primarily through positive personal characteristics and features of the competition. Study 2, in which participants chose information to be included in an athlete's description, confirms these findings. Differences in the construction of agency are reflected in and fostered by common cultural products (e.g., television accounts).