Balancing risks and rewards: How hematologists discuss uncertainty in allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation outcomes.

OBJECTIVE: Allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant (alloHCT) offers many patients with blood cancers a chance of cure but carries risks. We characterized how hematologists discuss the high-risk, high-reward concept of alloHCT. METHODS: Qualitative analysis of video-recorded virtual encounters of hematologists who routinely perform alloHCT with actors portraying an older man recently diagnosed with high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. RESULTS: Hematologists (n = 37) were a median age of 44 years, 65% male, and 68% white. They frequently used "teeter-totter" language that juxtaposed alloHCT's risks and rewards in a dynamic, quickly alternating fashion and communicated uncertainty in transplant outcomes. This dialogue oscillated between encouragement about alloHCT's potential for cure and caution about its risks and occurred within single speech turns and in exchanges between hematologist and patient. Fewer hematologists outlined their big-picture stance on transplant's risks and benefits early in the conversation. Meanwhile, hematologists varied in how they counseled patients to manage transplant-related uncertainty and consider treatment decision making. CONCLUSION: Hematologists use "teeter-totter" language to express hope and concern, confidence and uncertainty, and encouragement and caution about the high-risk, high-reward nature of alloHCT. PRACTICE IMPLICATIONS: Teeter-totter language may help frame big-picture content about alloHCT's risks and benefits that is essential for patient education and decision making.

Addressing climate change with behavioral science: A global intervention tournament in 63 countries.

Effectively reducing climate change requires marked, global behavior change. However, it is unclear which strategies are most likely to motivate people to change their climate beliefs and behaviors. Here, we tested 11 expert-crowdsourced interventions on four climate mitigation outcomes: beliefs, policy support, information sharing intention, and an effortful tree-planting behavioral task. Across 59,440 participants from 63 countries, the interventions' effectiveness was small, largely limited to nonclimate skeptics, and differed across outcomes: Beliefs were strengthened mostly by decreasing psychological distance (by 2.3%), policy support by writing a letter to a future-generation member (2.6%), information sharing by negative emotion induction (12.1%), and no intervention increased the more effortful behavior-several interventions even reduced tree planting. Last, the effects of each intervention differed depending on people's initial climate beliefs. These findings suggest that the impact of behavioral climate interventions varies across audiences and target behaviors.

Communication Strategies of Transplant Hematologists in High-Risk Decision-Making Conversations.

PURPOSE: Shared decision making (SDM) is essential to empower patients with blood cancers to make goal-concordant decisions about allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplantation. This study characterizes communication strategies used by hematologists to discuss treatment options and facilitate SDM with patients in this high-risk, high-reward setting. METHODS AND MATERIALS: We recruited US hematologists who routinely perform allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant through email. Participants conducted up to an hour-long video-recorded encounter with an actor portraying a 67-year-old man with recently diagnosed high-risk myelodysplastic syndrome. We transcribed and qualitatively analyzed video-recorded data. RESULTS: The mean age of participants (N = 37) was 44 years, 65% male, and 68% White. Many hematologists included similar key points in this initial consultation, although varied in how much detail they provided. Their discussion of treatment options included transplant and chemotherapy and less commonly supportive care or clinical trials. They often emphasized transplant's potential for cure, discussed transplant chronologically from pretransplant considerations through the post-transplant course, and outlined risks, complications, and major outcomes. Hematologists referred to several elements that formed the basis of treatment decision making. The strength of their treatment recommendations ranged from strong recommendations for transplant or chemotherapy to deferrals pending more information. Hematologists also varied in the extent to which they indicated the decision was physician-driven, patient-led, or shared. CONCLUSION: The transplant decision-making discussion is complex. Identification of similar content areas used by hematologists can be used as the basis for a communication tool to help hematologists discuss allogeneic hematopoietic cell transplant with patients.

Stuck on Intergroup Attitudes: The Need to Shift Gears to Change Intergroup Behaviors.

Decades of research on how to improve intergroup relations have primarily examined ways to change prejudiced attitudes. However, this focus on negative intergroup attitudes has yielded few effective solutions. Because intergroup relations are shaped by behavior during intergroup interactions, it is necessary to identify constructs that have a strong causal impact on intergroup behavior change. In this article, I will discuss evidence showing that intergroup attitude change is neither a sufficient nor necessary cause for intergroup behavior change. Empirical research suggests that intergroup attitudes are difficult to change and have a limited effect on intergroup behavior. I also distinguish between constructs that primarily affect intergroup attitude change (e.g., counterstereotypical exemplars, evaluative conditioning) and constructs that primarily affect intergroup behavior change (e.g., social norms, self-efficacy). Further, suggestions for future research will also be provided to advance understanding of the various psychological constructs that influence intergroup behavior change, which will help us develop effective methods of improving intergroup relations.

Red Media vs. Blue Media: Social Distancing and Partisan News Media Use during the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Political polarization surrounding the COVID-19 health crisis has been on the rise since the beginning of the pandemic. We combine prior research on motivated reasoning, selective exposure, and news framing to understand the association between partisan media use and social distancing behavior related to COVID-19. To do so, we collected media content data and national survey data during the onset of the pandemic. We employed structural topic modeling (STM), dependency parsing, word co-occurrence, and manual coding to examine the media coverage. Next, we analyzed survey data collected with a Qualtrics panel from a sample of U.S. residents for factors explaining social distancing behaviors. Results reveal coverage from the right leaning outlets downplayed the virus and highlighted the consequences of lockdowns on the economy. Our survey findings show that even after accounting for a range of demographic, political orientation, and COVID-19 awareness variables, conservative media use was linked, although modestly, with a lower likelihood of social distancing behavior. Our findings echo past research on media framing of pandemics and their association with public attitudes and behavior.

Data quality in online human-subjects research: Comparisons between MTurk, Prolific, CloudResearch, Qualtrics, and SONA.

With the proliferation of online data collection in human-subjects research, concerns have been raised over the presence of inattentive survey participants and non-human respondents (bots). We compared the quality of the data collected through five commonly used platforms. Data quality was indicated by the percentage of participants who meaningfully respond to the researcher's question (high quality) versus those who only contribute noise (low quality). We found that compared to MTurk, Qualtrics, or an undergraduate student sample (i.e., SONA), participants on Prolific and CloudResearch were more likely to pass various attention checks, provide meaningful answers, follow instructions, remember previously presented information, have a unique IP address and geolocation, and work slowly enough to be able to read all the items. We divided the samples into high- and low-quality respondents and computed the cost we paid per high-quality respondent. Prolific ($1.90) and CloudResearch ($2.00) were cheaper than MTurk ($4.36) and Qualtrics ($8.17). SONA cost $0.00, yet took the longest to collect the data.

News Attention and Social-Distancing Behavior Amid COVID-19: How Media Trust and Social Norms Moderate a Mediated Relationship.

Despite the fact that social distancing is an effective mean to slow the spread of COVID-19, individuals often fail to practice this behavior. Major US news media provided information to the public about social distancing after COVID-19 was declared a pandemic, potentially spurring this preventative health practice. Using data from a representative sample of US residents, this study aims to understand the relationship between news media attention and social-distancing behavior via three potential mediators: perceived effectiveness of social distancing, perceived susceptibility to COVID-19 infection, and perceived negative consequences of infection. Media trust and social norms concerning social distancing were included as potential moderators of these relationships, along with political ideology. With multiple regression and mediation analyses, we found that news media attention was positively associated with social-distancing behavior during this period. Perceived effectiveness of social distancing mediated this relationship, while perceived susceptibility and negative consequences of COVID-19 did not. Notably, media trust negatively moderated news attention's impact on the perceived effectiveness of social distancing, with the relationship being more pronounced among those who have lower trust in media. Political ideology did not moderate the relationship between news attention and perceived effectiveness. Further, social norms negatively moderated the relationship between perceived effectiveness and social-distancing behavior, with this relationship growing stronger among those uncertain about the adoption of social-distancing norms in their circle. Overall, the study found news media to have an important role in promoting social-distancing behavior when they emphasized safety measures across the ideological spectrum.

The Influence of Messaging on Perceptions of Careers in Veterinary Medicine: Do Gender Stereotypes Matter?

The veterinary medical workforce is increasingly female; occupational feminization often transfers stereotypes associated with the predominant gender onto the profession. It is unknown whether within veterinary medicine a feminized public image is a possible contributor to the reduction in male applicants to training programs. The influence of stereotypically gendered messaging on how male and female undergraduate students perceive veterinary medicine was investigated in 482 undergraduate students enrolled in five introductory or second-level biology courses. Two short videos introducing the field of veterinary medicine were developed with imagery and language selected to emphasize either stereotypic feminine (communal) or masculine (agentic) aspects of the field. Participant groups were randomly assigned one of the two videos (feminine/communal or masculine/agentic) or no video (no exposure). An outcome survey elicited impressions of the field of veterinary medicine and gathered demographic data. There was a significant linear trend of condition on perception of the profession as feminine or masculine and on perception of the activities of a veterinarian as feminine/communal or masculine/agentic. Female participants were significantly more likely to agree that someone of their gender would be valued in the profession. Male participants reported significantly higher self-efficacy scores for performing the tasks of a veterinarian when they viewed the feminine stereotype video. These results demonstrate that gendered perceptions of the field can be manipulated. Intentional gendered messaging should be further explored as one strategy to broaden the talent pool in the workforce by attracting men back to the field.

The Relationship among COVID-19 Information Seeking, News Media Use, and Emotional Distress at the Onset of the Pandemic.

Although several theories posit that information seeking is related to better psychological health, this logic may not apply to a pandemic like COVID-19. Given uncertainty inherent to the novel virus, we expect that information seeking about COVID-19 will be positively associated with emotional distress. Additionally, we consider the type of news media from which individuals receive information-television, newspapers, and social media-when examining relationships with emotional distress. Using a U.S. national survey, we examine: (1) the link between information seeking about COVID-19 and emotional distress, (2) the relationship between reliance on television, newspapers, and social media as sources for news and emotional distress, and (3) the interaction between information seeking and use of these news media sources on emotional distress. Our findings show that seeking information about COVID-19 was significantly related to emotional distress. Moreover, even after accounting for COVID-19 information seeking, consuming news via television and social media was tied to increased distress, whereas consuming newspapers was not significantly related to greater distress. Emotional distress was most pronounced among individuals high in information seeking and television news use, whereas the association between information seeking and emotional distress was not moderated by newspapers or social media news use.

Gamification to prevent climate change: a review of games and apps for sustainability.

Gamification, the application of game design principles to a nongaming context, has been used to promote pro-environmental behaviors. Such principles have been implemented in board games, team competitions, electronic games, smartphone apps, and in apps that researchers developed primarily to collect data. We review the games and apps that have been evaluated in empirical research in the last 5 years and provide a list of apps and games that have yet to be tested. Gamification has been used for sustainability education, energy reduction, transportation, air quality, waste management, and water conservation. Although we do not know yet why certain games and apps are more effective than others, gamification appears to be a promising avenue for preventing climate change.

Is discrimination widespread? Testing assumptions about bias on a university campus.

Discrimination has persisted in our society despite steady improvements in explicit attitudes toward marginalized social groups. The most common explanation for this apparent paradox is that due to implicit biases, most individuals behave in slightly discriminatory ways outside of their own awareness (the dispersed discrimination account). Another explanation holds that a numerical minority of individuals who are moderately or highly biased are responsible for most observed discriminatory behaviors (the concentrated discrimination account). We tested these 2 accounts against each other in a series of studies at a large, public university (total N = 16,600). In 4 large-scale surveys, students from marginalized groups reported that they generally felt welcome and respected on campus (albeit less so than nonmarginalized students) and that a numerical minority of their peers (around 20%) engage in subtle or explicit forms of discrimination. In 5 field experiments with 8 different samples, we manipulated the social group membership of trained confederates and measured the behaviors of naïve bystanders. The results showed that between 5% and 20% of the participants treated the confederates belonging to marginalized groups more negatively than nonmarginalized confederates. Our findings are inconsistent with the dispersed discrimination account but support the concentrated discrimination account. The Pareto principle states that, for many events, roughly 80% of the effects come from 20% of the causes. Our results suggest that the Pareto principle also applies to discrimination, at least at the large, public university where the studies were conducted. We discuss implications for prodiversity initiatives. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved).

Exposure to peers' pro-diversity attitudes increases inclusion and reduces the achievement gap.

There is a dearth of empirically validated pro-diversity methods that effectively create a more inclusive social climate. We developed two scalable interventions that target people's perceptions of social norms by communicating to them that their peers hold pro-diversity attitudes and engage in inclusive behaviours. We tested the interventions in six randomized controlled trials at a large public university in the United States (total n = 2,490). Non-marginalized students exposed to our interventions reported more positive attitudes toward outgroups and greater appreciation of diversity, whereas marginalized students had an increased sense of belonging, reported being treated more inclusively by their peers and earned better grades. While many current pro-diversity initiatives focus on raising awareness about the fact that implicit bias and subtle discrimination are widespread, our findings spotlight the importance of drawing people's attention to their peers' pro-diversity values and attitudes to create positive and lasting effects on the social climate.

Incorporating Social-Marketing Insights Into Prejudice Research: Advancing Theory and Demonstrating Real-World Applications.

Prejudice researchers have proposed a number of methods to reduce prejudice, drawing on and, in turn, contributing to our theoretical understanding of prejudice. Despite this progress, relatively few of these methods have been shown to reliably improve intergroup relations in real-world settings, resulting in a gap between our theoretical understanding of prejudice and real-world applications of prejudice-reduction methods. In this article, we suggest that incorporating principles from another field, social marketing, into prejudice research can help address this gap. Specifically, we describe three social-marketing principles and discuss how each could be used by prejudice researchers. Several areas for future research inspired by these principles are discussed. We suggest that a hybrid approach to research that uses both theory-based and problem-based principles can provide additional tools for field practitioners aiming to improve intergroup relations while leading to new advances in social-psychological theory.

Individual Differences in the Association Between Subjective Stress and Heart Rate Are Related to Psychological and Physical Well-Being.

The physiological response to stress is intertwined with, but distinct from, the subjective feeling of stress, although both systems must work in concert to enable adaptive responses. We investigated 1,065 participants from the Midlife in the United States 2 study who completed a self-report battery and a stress-induction procedure while physiological and self-report measures of stress were recorded. Individual differences in the association between heart rate and self-reported stress were analyzed in relation to measures that reflect psychological well-being (self-report measures of well-being, anxiety, depression), denial coping, and physical well-being (proinflammatory biomarkers interleukin-6 and C-reactive protein). The within-participants association between heart rate and self-reported stress was significantly related to higher psychological well-being, fewer depressive symptoms, lower trait anxiety, less use of denial coping, and lower levels of proinflammatory biomarkers. Our results highlight the importance of studying individual differences in coherence between physiological measures and subjective mental states in relation to well-being.

Little race or gender bias in an experiment of initial review of NIH R01 grant proposals.

Many granting agencies allow reviewers to know the identity of a proposal's principal investigator (PI), which opens the possibility that reviewers discriminate on the basis of PI race and gender. We investigated this experimentally with 48 NIH R01 grant proposals, representing a broad range of NIH-funded science. We modified PI names to create separate white male, white female, black male and black female versions of each proposal, and 412 scientists each submitted initial reviews for 3 proposals. We find little to no race or gender bias in initial R01 evaluations, and additionally find that any bias that might have been present must be negligible in size. This conclusion was robust to a wide array of statistical model specifications. Pragmatically, important bias may be present in other aspects of the granting process, but our evidence suggests that it is not present in the initial round of R01 reviews.

Low agreement among reviewers evaluating the same NIH grant applications.

Obtaining grant funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is increasingly competitive, as funding success rates have declined over the past decade. To allocate relatively scarce funds, scientific peer reviewers must differentiate the very best applications from comparatively weaker ones. Despite the importance of this determination, little research has explored how reviewers assign ratings to the applications they review and whether there is consistency in the reviewers' evaluation of the same application. Replicating all aspects of the NIH peer-review process, we examined 43 individual reviewers' ratings and written critiques of the same group of 25 NIH grant applications. Results showed no agreement among reviewers regarding the quality of the applications in either their qualitative or quantitative evaluations. Although all reviewers received the same instructions on how to rate applications and format their written critiques, we also found no agreement in how reviewers "translated" a given number of strengths and weaknesses into a numeric rating. It appeared that the outcome of the grant review depended more on the reviewer to whom the grant was assigned than the research proposed in the grant. This research replicates the NIH peer-review process to examine in detail the qualitative and quantitative judgments of different reviewers examining the same application, and our results have broad relevance for scientific grant peer review.

Individual differences in social control: Who 'speaks up' when witnessing uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours?

This research examined the personality characteristics of individuals who 'speak up' and confront perpetrators of norm transgressions. We tested whether those who intervene tend to be 'bitter complainers' or 'well-adjusted leaders'. In four studies (total N = 1,003), we measured several individual differences that are directly implicated by at least one of the two concepts. We also presented participants with uncivil, discriminatory, and immoral behaviours and asked them how likely they would be to intervene if they were to witness each of these behaviours as a bystander. The results confirmed the well-adjusted leader hypothesis: Participants' self-reported tendency to confront perpetrators correlated positively with altruism, extraversion, social responsibility, acceptance by peers, independent self-construal, emotion regulation, persistence, self-directedness, age, occupation, and monthly salary, but not with aggressiveness or low self-esteem. Individuals who confront prejudice also speak up against other immoral and uncivil behaviours. We discuss the implications of these findings for the perpetuation and change of social norms.

Linear mixed-effects models and the analysis of nonindependent data: A unified framework to analyze categorical and continuous independent variables that vary within-subjects and/or within-items.

In this article we address a number of important issues that arise in the analysis of nonindependent data. Such data are common in studies in which predictors vary within "units" (e.g., within-subjects, within-classrooms). Most researchers analyze categorical within-unit predictors with repeated-measures ANOVAs, but continuous within-unit predictors with linear mixed-effects models (LMEMs). We show that both types of predictor variables can be analyzed within the LMEM framework. We discuss designs with multiple sources of nonindependence, for example, studies in which the same subjects rate the same set of items or in which students nested in classrooms provide multiple answers. We provide clear guidelines about the types of random effects that should be included in the analysis of such designs. We also present a number of corrective steps that researchers can take when convergence fails in LMEM models with too many parameters. We end with a brief discussion on the trade-off between power and generalizability in designs with "within-unit" predictors. (PsycINFO Database Record

'Your comments are meaner than your score': score calibration talk influences intra- and inter-panel variability during scientific grant peer review.

In scientific grant peer review, groups of expert scientists meet to engage in the collaborative decision-making task of evaluating and scoring grant applications. Prior research on grant peer review has established that inter-reviewer reliability is typically poor. In the current study, experienced reviewers for the National Institutes of Health (NIH) were recruited to participate in one of four constructed peer review panel meetings. Each panel discussed and scored the same pool of recently reviewed NIH grant applications. We examined the degree of intra-panel variability in panels' scores of the applications before versus after collaborative discussion, and the degree of inter-panel variability. We also analyzed videotapes of reviewers' interactions for instances of one particular form of discourse-Score Calibration Talk-as one factor influencing the variability we observe. Results suggest that although reviewers within a single panel agree more following collaborative discussion, different panels agree less after discussion, and Score Calibration Talk plays a pivotal role in scoring variability during peer review. We discuss implications of this variability for the scientific peer review process.

Reducing implicit racial preferences: II. Intervention effectiveness across time.

Implicit preferences are malleable, but does that change last? We tested 9 interventions (8 real and 1 sham) to reduce implicit racial preferences over time. In 2 studies with a total of 6,321 participants, all 9 interventions immediately reduced implicit preferences. However, none were effective after a delay of several hours to several days. We also found that these interventions did not change explicit racial preferences and were not reliably moderated by motivations to respond without prejudice. Short-term malleability in implicit preferences does not necessarily lead to long-term change, raising new questions about the flexibility and stability of implicit preferences. (PsycINFO Database Record