Prosocial motives underlie scientific censorship by scientists: A perspective and research agenda.

Science is among humanity's greatest achievements, yet scientific censorship is rarely studied empirically. We explore the social, psychological, and institutional causes and consequences of scientific censorship (defined as actions aimed at obstructing particular scientific ideas from reaching an audience for reasons other than low scientific quality). Popular narratives suggest that scientific censorship is driven by authoritarian officials with dark motives, such as dogmatism and intolerance. Our analysis suggests that scientific censorship is often driven by scientists, who are primarily motivated by self-protection, benevolence toward peer scholars, and prosocial concerns for the well-being of human social groups. This perspective helps explain both recent findings on scientific censorship and recent changes to scientific institutions, such as the use of harm-based criteria to evaluate research. We discuss unknowns surrounding the consequences of censorship and provide recommendations for improving transparency and accountability in scientific decision-making to enable the exploration of these unknowns. The benefits of censorship may sometimes outweigh costs. However, until costs and benefits are examined empirically, scholars on opposing sides of ongoing debates are left to quarrel based on competing values, assumptions, and intuitions.

ENHANCE-II: An Abridged Intervention to Promote Subjective Well-Being.

The Enduring Happiness and Continued Self-Enhancement (ENHANCE) program, a 12-week intervention, effectively enhances subjective wellbeing and reduces negative symptoms. The current study tested an abbreviated 7-week version, ENHANCE-II, that may better fit the needs and schedules of some people. In a longitudinal study, participants (n = 51) took part in the self-study program and completed psychological assessments at baseline, posttest, and follow up (5 weeks). Multilevel models were used to analyze the data, with treatment group data from ENHANCE treated as the comparison. Analyses showed improvements in all four outcomes: life satisfaction (statistically significant), positive affect, negative affect, and depression. These effects were about half as strong as those in ENHANCE, but this effect reduction was partially attributable to low adherence. Effects were much stronger among participants who adhered to the program, especially for negative symptoms. Although there were no assessments at later intervals, the study suggests that ENHANCE-II intervention is likely beneficial for participants who need brief programs.

High Socioeconomic Status Predicts Substance Use and Alcohol Consumption in U.S. Undergraduates.

BACKGROUND: In health sociology, the prevailing consensus is that socioeconomic status (SES) lowers illness risk. This model neglects the fact that unhealthful consumption patterns may covary with affluence. The current study examines consumption of drugs and alcohol among affluent U.S. college students. OBJECTIVES: The article tests the hypothesis that undergraduate students from high-SES households have higher rates and levels of drug and alcohol consumption than their peers. METHODS: The study used self-report data from 18,611 18- to 24-year-old undergraduates across 23 public and private U.S. institutions from the Healthy Minds 2016 dataset. RESULTS: I found that high-SES undergraduates were more likely than peers to use marijuana, choose varied drugs, consume alcohol frequently, and use alcohol and substances to cope with stress. The first three results were robust after controlling for gender, race, residence type, and relationship status. Marital status and race were stronger predictors than SES. Asians and married students were the least likely to use alcohol and drugs. Conclusions/Importance: Findings supported the main hypotheses, and the effects were robust to controls. Consumption of illicit drugs and alcohol may be one hitherto neglected reason for downward mobility among economically privileged college students.

Stereotypes violate the postmodern construction of personal autonomy.

Individual autonomy, as constructed in the postmodern era, is violated by stereotypes, which makes stereotype accuracy morally unpalatable. Yet people are clustered and homogenized by social forces, entailing some accuracy in stereotypes. This tension can be ameliorated by unveiling the constructed nature of autonomous selfhood, and explaining why social clustering has occurred and been adaptive.

Investigating the Goldilocks Hypothesis: The Non-Linear Impact of Positive Trait Change on Well-Being.

This paper attempts to reconcile two perspectives on the impact of positive trait change. The first perspective views positive trait change as salubrious because it reflects the process of self-enhancement, whereas the second perspective views positive change as costly because it disrupts the self-verification process. We propose that benefits and costs accrue at discrete rates, such that moderate positive trait change is more beneficial than too little and too much positive change. This constitutes a Goldilocks hypothesis. Using the MIDUS longitudinal dataset (N = 1,725) we test this hypothesis on four traits, namely, social extraversion, agentic extraversion (agency), conscientiousness, and neuroticism. The Goldilocks hypothesis was supported for social extraversion, agentic extraversion (agency), and conscientiousness. Reduction in neuroticism seemed uniformly predictive of higher well-being. Thus, not all amounts of positive trait change are beneficial. While we find no evidence for a limit to the benefits of reduced neuroticism, there is a "just right" amount of positive change in extraversion and conscientiousness that results in the highest level of well-being. Our findings suggest that non-monotonic models may be more valid in investigations of personality change and well-being.

The White ceiling heuristic and the underestimation of Asian-American income.

The belief that ethnic majorities dominate ethnic minorities informs research on intergroup processes. This belief can lead to the social heuristic that the ethnic majority sets an upper limit that minority groups cannot surpass, but this possibility has not received much attention. In three studies of perceived income, we examined how this heuristic, which we term the White ceiling heuristic leads people to inaccurately estimate the income of a minority group that surpasses the majority. We found that Asian Americans, whose median income has surpassed White median income for nearly three decades, are still perceived as making less than Whites, with the least accurate estimations being made by people who strongly believe that Whites are privileged. In contrast, income estimates for other minorities were fairly accurate. Thus, perceptions of minorities are shaped both by stereotype content and a heuristic.