Journal of Social Issues最新文献

This mixed-methods study examines how the intersections of race, sexuality, and neurodivergence shape personal identity and experiences of stigma in the United States, with a focus on the implications for public policy. Using a mixed-methods approach, the research integrates quantitative stigma scores with qualitative interviews to reveal the discrimination faced by individuals with intersecting marginalized identities. The findings underscore the inadequacies of current anti-discrimination policies, particularly for individuals from sexual, neurodivergent, and racial minority backgrounds. Participants expressed frustration with policies that fail to address their complex lived realities, highlighting the need for policies that are inclusive, intersectional, and human-centered. The research emphasizes the necessity of systemic policy reforms that prioritize long-term, equitable solutions, actively engaging marginalized communities in policy development. It is crucial to recognize the fluidity of identity and ensure policies reflect the diversity of lived experiences. This study calls for the creation of policies that actively dismantle entrenched barriers and provide support for individuals navigating multiple marginalized identities.

The present research examines racial representation in psychology textbooks and its impact on students' personal relatability to psychological theories through two interconnected studies. Study 1 analyzed racial and skin tone representation across five psychology textbooks used in East/Southeast Asian universities, revealing significant overrepresentation of White individuals (66% of images) and light skin tones (68% of images) despite serving predominantly non-White student populations. Study 2 experimentally tested how representational (in)congruence affects Hong Kong Chinese university students' ability to personally relate to psychological content. Results showed significantly higher personal relatability to psychological theories when materials featured both ethnically and linguistically congruent content compared to incongruent content (p < 0.05). This relationship was fully mediated by students' perception of textbook images as representing their ingroup. The findings demonstrate how global power asymmetries in knowledge production continue to shape psychological education across geopolitical contexts, particularly through the persistent dominance of Western/White representations in educational materials used internationally. This research contributes to understanding how colonial-era social hierarchies are reproduced through contemporary academic practices, offering practical implications for decolonizing psychological pedagogy and creating more internationally relevant educational materials.

Within each generation of academics, perennial, soul-searching questions emerge regarding whether and how psychological research can have meaningful impact, and calls for the broader applicability and significance of our work have only grown in recent years. Yet, oftentimes, the social relevance of our research is construed as being at odds with the scientific enterprise, as if we must choose between conducting rigorous tests of psychological theory and caring about the issues and populations we study, and about how psychological processes operate in the real-world. This address serves as a reminder that pursuing socially relevant research and maintaining scientific rigor need not be framed as being in opposition to each other. Instead, I propose quite the opposite: there are many ways in which a focus on social relevance can make our science better.

The Intergroup Time Bias (ITB) is an unobtrusive yet impactful form of discrimination, characterized by the unequal allocation of time, favoring White individuals compared to Black individuals. This biased time allocation has significant implications for racial inequities in critical social domains, including healthcare. Across three studies, we demonstrate the ITB as a pervasive factor contributing to racial healthcare disparities. Study 1 (N = 166 patients, N = 9 physicians) examined real-world clinical interactions in Brazil, revealing that White physicians consistently spent more time with White patients than Black patients across multiple medical specialties. Study 2 (N = 210) extended these findings to Portugal through a vignette study, where White medical trainees spent significantly more time to clinical tasks involving a White (vs. Black) patient, leading to enhanced diagnostic accuracy and more comprehensive clinical recommendations for the White patient. Study 3 (N = 99) explored additional ITB consequences, specifically medical trainees’ written email communication to patients in Portugal, using the same clinical scenario as Study 2. Consistent with Study 2, trainees spent significantly more time on clinical tasks involving a White (vs. Black) patient, which translated into higher quality written communication for the White patient. Notably, trainees who scored high on implicit racial bias but low on explicit racial bias (i.e., aversive racists) showed stronger ITB than those with high implicit and explicit racial bias (i.e., prejudiced) or low implicit and explicit racial bias (i.e., non-prejudiced). This research represents work in T1, with a goal to establish proof of concept, through observational and experimental studies, on the critical role that ITB plays in contributing to racial healthcare disparities. Future T2–T4 research is needed to understand how the ITB manifests in multiple aspects of patient care in the actual clinical settings, test interventions to reduce it, and refine these interventions for broader effectiveness.