Adolescent Developmental Pathways Among Depression, Conduct Problems, and Rejection: Integrative Data Analysis Across Three Samples.

OBJECTIVE: The current study investigated sex differences in longitudinal associations among youth depression, conduct problems, and peer rejection from ages 11 to 16. We hypothesized that girls would follow the irritable depression model, which posits that depression leads to conduct problems, and that peer rejection would mediate this relationship. We hypothesized that boys would follow the cumulative failure model, which suggests that conduct problems predict future depression, mediated by peer rejection. METHOD: We used integrative data analysis to combine three datasets, creating an aggregate sample of 2,322 adolescents, 58.4% of an ethnic minority group, and 51.3% boys. Using random-intercept cross-lagged panel modeling with data from ages 11-16, we conducted a nested model comparison. RESULTS: Results indicated that a model which allowed paths to differ by sex demonstrated better model fit than a constrained model. While depression, conduct problems, and peer rejection were relatively stable over time and had correlated random intercepts, there were few crossover paths between these domains for either sex. When the strengths of individual crossover pathways were compared based on sex, only the path from conduct problems at age 13 to depression at age 14 was significantly different, with this path being stronger for girls. CONCLUSIONS: These results suggest that stable, between-person effects largely drive relationships between depression, conduct problems, and peer rejection during adolescence, whereas there are few transactional, within-person pathways between these domains. This pattern of findings demonstrates the utility of random intercept cross-lagged panel modeling for disentangling between- and within-person effects.

Investigating How High Perceived Economic Inequality Exacerbates Intergroup Competition, Zero-Sum Beliefs, and Perceived Intergroup Prejudice.

Rising economic inequality is associated with more prejudice. Little empirical data, however, investigate how inequality affects individuals' psychological processing and, in turn, exacerbates perceptions of prejudice in people's geographic area. We hypothesized that higher perceived economic inequality triggers beliefs that unequal economies are zero-sum and leads to beliefs that people are in competition for limited resources, which may ultimately exacerbate perceived prejudice. Through nine experiments (Studies 1-5 in the manuscript and three additional studies in the Supplement), we provide evidence that higher perceived inequality increases perceived prejudice against a wide range of outgroups. Furthermore, zero-sum beliefs and perceived competition serially mediate this relationship (Studies 2 and 3). In Study 4, we investigate nuance in this hypothesized model by testing whether higher perceived economic inequality exacerbates perceived racial/ethnic prejudice among a large, diverse sample and find a similar pattern of results. Finally (Study 5), we demonstrate that assuaging competition beliefs mitigates perceived prejudice.

Perceptions of Falling Behind "Most White People": Within-Group Status Comparisons Predict Fewer Positive Emotions and Worse Health Over Time Among White (but Not Black) Americans.

Despite the persistence of anti-Black racism, White Americans report feeling worse off than Black Americans. We suggest that some White Americans may report low well-being despite high group-level status because of perceptions that they are falling behind their in-group. Using census-based quota sampling, we measured status comparisons and health among Black (N = 452, Wave 1) and White (N = 439, Wave 1) American adults over a period of 6 to 7 weeks. We found that Black and White Americans tended to make status comparisons within their own racial groups and that most Black participants felt better off than their racial group, whereas most White participants felt worse off than their racial group. Moreover, we found that White Americans' perceptions of falling behind "most White people" predicted fewer positive emotions at a subsequent time, which predicted worse sleep quality and depressive symptoms in the future. Subjective within-group status did not have the same consequences among Black participants.

Cascading Influences of Caregiver Experiences of Discrimination and Adolescent Antisocial Behavior.

OBJECTIVE: Although a growing body of work has found that parents' experiences of racial and socioeconomic (SES) based discrimination are directly related to their children's behavior problems , more work is needed to understand possible pathways by which these factors are related and to identify potential targets for prevention and/or intervention. METHOD: Using a large (N = 572), longitudinal sample of low-income families from diverse racial backgrounds, the current study explored whether caregivers' experiences of racial and SES discrimination during their children's middle childhood (i.e. ages 7.5-9.5) predicted youth-reported antisocial behavior during adolescence and potential factors mediating these associations (e.g. caregiver depressive symptoms and positive parenting practices). RESULTS: We found that higher levels of caregiver experiences of discrimination at child ages 7.5-9.5 predicted higher levels of caregiver depressive symptoms at child age 10.5, which were related to lower levels of caregiver endorsement of positive parenting practices at child age 14.5, which in turn, predicted higher levels of youth-reported antisocial behavior at age 16. CONCLUSION: The findings highlight the adverse effects of racism and discrimination in American society. Second, the findings underscore the need to develop interventions which mitigate racism and discrimination among perpetrators and alleviate depressive symptoms among caregivers.

Racialized Sexism: Nonverbal Displays of Power in Workplace Settings are Evaluated as More Masculine When Displayed by White (vs. Black) Women With Implications for the Expression of Ambivalent Sexism.

We hypothesized that White (vs. Black) women in high- (vs. low-) power poses would be evaluated as particularly masculine and unfeminine due to greater perceived violations of gendered racial stereotypes. As predicted, White (vs. Black) women in high- (but not low-) power poses were evaluated as more masculine and less feminine (Studies 1-3). Moreover, greater perceived masculinity of White (vs. Black) women in high-power poses predicted more hostile sexism; and, lesser perceived femininity of White (vs. Black) women predicted less benevolent sexism. Finally, these associations between masculinity/hostile sexism and femininity/benevolent sexism serially mediated reduced hiring desirability of White (vs. Black) women (Study 2). Study 3 replicated these serial indirect effects and found that these effects emerged regardless of job status and even when controlling for socially desirable responding. We conclude that gendered racism leads sexism to be expressed toward White and Black women embodying power in distinct ways.

Beliefs That White People Are Poor, Above and Beyond Beliefs That Black People Are Poor, Predict White (But Not Black) Americans' Attitudes Toward Welfare Recipients and Policy.

In past work, White Americans' beliefs about Black poverty have predicted lower perceived work ethic of the poor, and, thus, less welfare support. In this article, we examine whether beliefs about White poverty predict more positive attributions about the poor among three representative samples of White Americans. Study 1 reveals that White (but not Black) Americans' White-poor beliefs predict increased perceptions that welfare recipients are hardworking, which predict more welfare support. Study 2 demonstrates that the link between White Americans' White-poor beliefs and the humanization of welfare recipients is stronger among White Americans who feel intergroup status threat (i.e., those who hold racial zero-sum beliefs). Study 3 replicates and extends Study 2 by using an experimental approach. Together, these data suggest that White Americans' White-poor beliefs function to humanize welfare recipients as a means to justify policies that could help the ingroup, preserving the racial status quo.

Avoidance Coping Partially Accounts for the Relationship Between Trauma-Related Shame and PTSD Symptoms Following Interpersonal Trauma.

Research has demonstrated that individuals experiencing trauma-related shame exhibit greater posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD) symptoms. However, little research has investigated additional factors relevant to the shame-PTSD relationship. The current study examined the role of avoidance and approach coping in accounting for the trauma-related shame-PTSD association among 60 women who had experienced interpersonal trauma. Indirect effects tests revealed that avoidance coping partially accounted for the association between shame and interviewer-assessed PTSD symptoms, ß = .21, SE = 0.08, 95% confidence interval (CI) = [0.03, 0.36]. These findings offer a novel contribution to the growing literature examining negative outcomes following interpersonal trauma.

Confederate monuments and the history of lynching in the American South: An empirical examination.

The present work interrogates the history of Confederate memorializations by examining the relationship between these memorializations and lynching, an explicitly racist act of violence. We obtained and merged data on Confederate memorializations at the county level and lynching victims, also at the county level. We find that the number of lynching victims in a county is a positive and significant predictor of the number of Confederate memorializations in that county, even after controlling for relevant covariates. This finding provides concrete, quantitative, and historically and geographically situated evidence consistent with the position that Confederate memorializations reflect a racist history, one marred by intentions to terrorize and intimidate Black Americans in response to Black progress.

A Privileged Point of View: Effects of Subjective Socioeconomic Status on Naïve Realism and Political Division.

In the United States, both economic inequality and political conflict are on the rise. We investigated whether subjective socioeconomic status (SSS) may help explain why these dual patterns emerge. We hypothesized that higher SSS may increase naïve realism-the belief that one perceives the world as it is, rather than as interpreted through one's own knowledge and beliefs-regarding political issues. Using a representative sample of the American electorate, we found that higher SSS predicted more political naïve realism toward those from a different political party (Study 1). The remaining experiments examined the causal relationship between SSS and political naïve realism (Studies 2-5). We extended these findings by investigating whether SSS influenced participants' willingness to exclude those with contrary views from a vote (Studies 4 and 5). Together, these studies demonstrate that SSS enhances political naïve realism and can lead to the exclusion of others with contrary opinions.

The policy implications of feeling relatively low versus high status within a privileged group.

Research suggests that White Americans oppose welfare due to between-group processes: Many White Americans envision welfare recipients to be lazy, undeserving, and Black, and these perceptions predict reduced welfare support. In the present work, we consider the role of within-group processes that result from complementary beliefs that White people, as a group, are wealthy. Using a nationally representative sample of White and Black Americans (Study 1) and two large samples of White Americans (Study 2 and Study 3; N = 2,000), we find that many White Americans feel relatively lower status than their racial group. Furthermore, these perceived within-group status disparities are associated with reduced stereotyping of welfare recipients as lazy, which mediates greater policy support. Finally, we demonstrate that leading White Americans to take ownership of their racial privilege can increase perceptions of within-group status. And these shifts in within-group status have downstream consequences for attitudes toward welfare recipients and policies (replicating our previous two studies). We conclude that consideration of both between-group and within-group processes may provide a fuller understanding of how group-level privilege shapes White Americans' support (or lack thereof) for hierarchy-attenuating policy. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2022 APA, all rights reserved).

On Intersectionality: How Complex Patterns of Discrimination Can Emerge From Simple Stereotypes.

Patterns of discrimination are often complex (i.e., multiplicative), with different identities combining to yield especially potent discrimination. For example, Black men are disproportionately stopped by police to a degree that cannot be explained by the simple (i.e., additive) effects of being Black and being male. Researchers often posit corresponding mental representations (e.g., intersectional stereotypes for Black men) to account for these complex outcomes. We suggest that complex discrimination can be explained by simple stereotypes combined with threshold models of behavior-for example, "if someone's threat level seems higher than X, stop that person." Simulations provide proof of this concept. We show how gender-by-race discrimination in both promotions and police stops can be explained by simple stereotypes. We also explore race-by-age discrimination in police stops, in which racial disparities are greater for young adolescents. This work suggests that complex behaviors can sometimes arise from relatively simple cognitions.

Historical roots of implicit bias in slavery.

Implicit racial bias remains widespread, even among individuals who explicitly reject prejudice. One reason for the persistence of implicit bias may be that it is maintained through structural and historical inequalities that change slowly. We investigated the historical persistence of implicit bias by comparing modern implicit bias with the proportion of the population enslaved in those counties in 1860. Counties and states more dependent on slavery before the Civil War displayed higher levels of pro-White implicit bias today among White residents and less pro-White bias among Black residents. These associations remained significant after controlling for explicit bias. The association between slave populations and implicit bias was partially explained by measures of structural inequalities. Our results support an interpretation of implicit bias as the cognitive residue of past and present structural inequalities.

Complex intersections of race and class: Among social liberals, learning about White privilege reduces sympathy, increases blame, and decreases external attributions for White people struggling with poverty.

White privilege lessons are sometimes used to increase awareness of racism. However, little research has investigated the consequences of these lessons. Across 2 studies (N = 1,189), we hypothesized that White privilege lessons may both highlight structural privilege based on race, and simultaneously decrease sympathy for other challenges some White people endure (e.g., poverty)-especially among social liberals who may be particularly receptive to structural explanations of inequality. Indeed, both studies revealed that while social liberals were overall more sympathetic to poor people than social conservatives, reading about White privilege decreased their sympathy for a poor White (vs. Black) person. Moreover, these shifts in sympathy were associated with greater punishment/blame and fewer external attributions for a poor White person's plight. We conclude that, among social liberals, White privilege lessons may increase beliefs that poor White people have failed to take advantage of their racial privilege-leading to negative social evaluations. (PsycINFO Database Record (c) 2019 APA, all rights reserved).

Personal Prejudice, Other Guilt: Explicit Prejudice Toward Black People Predicts Guilty Verdicts for White Officers Who Kill Black Men.

Across the United States, acquittals of White police officers who have killed Black men have spurred clashes between those who see such situations as manifestations of racism and those who see them as race-irrelevant acts of officer self-defense. In this research, we explore the relationship between participants' racial prejudice and construal of an event that leads to the death of a Black man. In Study 1, we found that participants' racial prejudice predicts lower perceived guilt for a White officer who killed a Black man. In Study 2, we found evidence that the relationship between racial prejudice and guilt judgments is driven by increased perceptions that the officer was in danger and decreased perceived relevance of officer prejudice. Finally, Study 3 demonstrated that these patterns hold when the victim is Black, but not White. We conclude that racial prejudice shapes perceptions of legal responsibility for lethal interactions with Black men.

Atheist horns and religious halos: Mental representations of atheists and theists.

Theists often receive the benefit of being stereotyped as trustworthy and moral, whereas atheists are viewed as untrustworthy and immoral. The extreme divergence between the stereotypes of theists and atheists suggests that mental images of the two groups may also diverge. We investigated whether people have biased mental images of theists and atheists. The results suggest that mental images of theists are associated with more positive attributes than images of atheists (Study 1), and these mental images influence who is believed to behave morally and immorally (Study 2). Together the findings suggest that mental images may represent a subtle mechanism reinforcing group-based prejudices. (PsycINFO Database Record

The politics of socioeconomic status: how socioeconomic status may influence political attitudes and engagement.

Socioeconomic status is hypothesized to be one factor informing political attitudes and actions. Presumably, this relationship is rooted in economic self-interest, with individuals preferring policies that would benefit them financially. In addition, these economic policy preferences are assumed to translate into political action. However, the relationships between socioeconomic status and political attitudes and behavior, as well as the psychological mechanisms associated with those relationships, are not straightforward. Here, we briefly review the current state of knowledge on the relationships between socioeconomic status and political attitudes and behavior. Overall, the research suggests that while socioeconomic status informs political attitudes toward economic policies, these attitudes may not correlate with complementary political behavior.

Economic inequality increases risk taking.

Rising income inequality is a global trend. Increased income inequality has been associated with higher rates of crime, greater consumer debt, and poorer health outcomes. The mechanisms linking inequality to poor outcomes among individuals are poorly understood. This research tested a behavioral account linking inequality to individual decision making. In three experiments (n = 811), we found that higher inequality in the outcomes of an economic game led participants to take greater risks to try to achieve higher outcomes. This effect of unequal distributions on risk taking was driven by upward social comparisons. Next, we estimated economic risk taking in daily life using large-scale data from internet searches. Risk taking was higher in states with greater income inequality, an effect driven by inequality at the upper end of the income distribution. Results suggest that inequality may promote poor outcomes, in part, by increasing risky behavior.

The Relationship Between Mental Representations of Welfare Recipients and Attitudes Toward Welfare.

Scholars have argued that opposition to welfare is, in part, driven by stereotypes of African Americans. This argument assumes that when individuals think about welfare, they spontaneously think about Black recipients. We investigated people's mental representations of welfare recipients. In Studies 1 and 2, we used a perceptual task to visually estimate participants' mental representations of welfare recipients. Compared with the average non-welfare-recipient image, the average welfare-recipient image was perceived (by a separate sample) as more African American and more representative of stereotypes associated with welfare recipients and African Americans. In Study 3, participants were asked to determine whether they supported giving welfare benefits to the people pictured in the average welfare-recipient and non-welfare-recipient images generated in Study 2. Participants were less supportive of giving welfare benefits to the person shown in the welfare-recipient image than to the person shown in the non-welfare-recipient image. The results suggest that mental images of welfare recipients may bias attitudes toward welfare policies.

Replicable effects of primes on human behavior.

[Correction Notice: An Erratum for this article was reported online in Journal of Experimental Psychology: General on Oct 31 2016 (see record 2016-52334-001). ] The effect of primes (i.e., incidental cues) on human behavior has become controversial. Early studies reported counterintuitive findings, suggesting that primes can shape a wide range of human behaviors. Recently, several studies failed to replicate some earlier priming results, raising doubts about the reliability of those effects. We present a within-subjects procedure for priming behavior, in which participants decide whether to bet or pass on each trial of a gambling game. We report 6 replications (N = 988) showing that primes consistently affected gambling decisions when the decision was uncertain. Decisions were influenced by primes presented visibly, with a warning to ignore the primes (Experiments 1 through 3) and with subliminally presented masked primes (Experiment 4). Using a process dissociation procedure, we found evidence that primes influenced responses through both automatic and controlled processes (Experiments 5 and 6). Results provide evidence that primes can reliably affect behavior, under at least some conditions, without intention. The findings suggest that the psychological question of whether behavior priming effects are real should be separated from methodological issues affecting how easily particular experimental designs will replicate.