John M. Zelenski

John M. Zelenski is a Professor of Psychology at Carleton University in Ottawa, Canada. He completed psychology degrees at Northwestern University (B.A.), the University of Michigan (M.A.), and Washington University in St. Louis (Ph.D.). His research has focused on the causes and consequences of introverted-extraverted behavior, the links among nature, happiness, and sustainable behavior, and the meta-science of improving research practices.


Do you have a favorite conference memory or story?

I am sure that there were many memorable talks at the 2004 conference in Austin, but I missed most of them. This is the SPSP conference where I first met my partner Cheryl. I was in the hotel lobby with my new colleague (Michael Wohl) when he spotted an old high school friend across the room. She joined us for an evening of Austin’s great live music, and their high school reunion took a back seat to new flirtations. Cheryl and I spent a lot of time together in Austin, and at the next few SPSP conferences, until I finally convinced her to move to Ottawa with me in 2010. Since then, I don’t anticipate SPSP conferences quite as passionately, but I do devote more attention to the academic content knowing that I will not have to wait another year to see Cheryl again.
 

Can you recall a moment, experience or person that influenced you or led you to decide that personality and social psychology was the path for you?

Almost certainly, I am a personality-social psychologist because of Bill Revelle’s undergraduate personality research course. His contagious enthusiasm caught my attention, and he posed perplexing questions about why caffeine and arousal seem to have different interactions with introversion-extraversion depending on the time of day. He supported my plodding through these questions with a thesis project that helped paved the way to a personality focus in graduate school and beyond. Bill also argued that psychology was really a sub-field personality (because of personality’s breadth), making it an ideal choice for someone who does not like to choose.
 

What are your current research interests?

My interest in introversion-extraversion continues, but it has evolved from time-of-day effects, through emotional and cognitive correlates, to momentary variations and counter-dispositional behavior. This has led to current interests in authenticity and how traits are linked to identity.

With that said, most of my research currently addresses a completely different topic: how people connect with nature and how this links to well-being and sustainable behavior. In a nutshell, I am trying to understand whether and how we can foster a ‘happy path to sustainability’ where people treat the natural environment better and benefit from a closer connection with nature. (This all began when then student Lisa Nisbet pitched the idea to me as the local happiness guy; the research and my interest in it just continued to grow, an unexpected but wonderful career turn.)
 

Do you have a favorite course to teach and why?

Positive psychology is my favorite course to teach.  A big part of the reason is that I feel very confident with the content having recently written—shameless plug—a textbook for the course. Student questions can still surprise me, but I am better prepared than ever. In our current credibility revolution definitive answers are difficult, but I can at least feel good about my strong opinions. More importantly, reflecting on the good life, priorities, and strategies comes at an ideal time for young people tinkering with their worldviews and future plans. This was particularly evident when I taught positive psychology with Semester at Sea, a dramatically mind-opening experience for most participants and an ideal time for positive psychology content.
 

Outside of psychology, how do you like to spend your free time?

The time I spend doing nature-related activities has grown substantially since I began that research. Perhaps it counts a little as psychology then, but I enjoy birding, kayaking, fishing, and gardening. I also spend pleasurable time with podcasts in my ears, cooking, finding interesting wines, and learning archery (just targets, unless I miss).
 

Take Action to Increase Funding for Research

The Society for Personality and Social Psychology has signed on to a letter to encourage full funding for the Research Investment to Spark the Economy (RISE) Act (H.R.869/S.289). The RISE Act would provide $25 billion towards research, prevent setbacks, and further the goal of an inclusive STEM workforce. Read the excerpt below, and click the attached document for the complete statement. Email or message your senators and representatives to request action regarding the need for supplemental research funding.

The widespread, detrimental impact of COVID-19 on research and researchers, particularly those from underrepresented backgrounds, runs counter to the never more visible need for a strong and prolific research & development (R&D) ecosystem. According to a 2020 report from the Council on Government Relations, projected research output loss due to COVID-19 ranges between 20 to 40 percent, with a “potential impact approaching tens of billions of dollars across the entire U.S. research enterprise.”

Beyond the immediate damaging financial losses at the local, state, and federal levels, the long-term repercussions of interrupted research mean that future scientific innovations and discoveries will be squandered or severely delayed. Whether the measure is societal progress, our nation’s ability to preempt and respond to threats like COVID-19, potential lives saved, or U.S. economic competitiveness, failing to shore up our weakened research infrastructure contravenes the best interests of the American people.

Statement organized by ResearchAmerica!

For those wanting to engage more on these issues, as well as support science funding, we recommend visiting COSSA for more resources.

Why Do Certain Things Feel Morally Wrong?


There was a time in my life when I thought that morality could not be studied scientifically. To me, morals seemed to be absolute truths—not something that could be quantified or studied under an empirical lens. The irony of my past self is now only too clear. Below, I’ll share with you some research I’ve conducted on—you guessed it—the science of morality.

Where do moral judgments come from? Are morals similar to absolute truths like I had originally thought?  Only a few decades ago, most Americans judged same-sex marriage as immoral and wrong. In 1988, only about 10% of Americans supported same-sex marriage. In 2020, 70% of Americans did so. It’s hard to capture the magnitude of this shift in public opinion or to fully appreciate the impact it has had on countless lives. This shift demonstrates, at least to me, that what is moral and immoral can change markedly and is relative to the surrounding context. At minimum, some morals aren’t absolute like I had originally thought. So, then, what makes us judge something as more or less moral? Why do morals shift over time and in different situations?

Across philosophy, psychology, and sociology, many very smart people have tried to figure out why we hold the morals we do and how morals change. Answers to these questions have largely focused on two explanations—let’s call them the deliberative pathway and the intuitionist pathway.

The deliberative pathway involves thought and reasoning. As conscious, enlightened creatures, human beings reason out what is right and wrong in a logical fashion. For example, you could conclude that cheating on a test is wrong because it betrays the trust of other people and undermines meritocracy. In contrast, the intuitionist pathway involves our emotional, “gut” reactions. So, for instance, you might conclude that cheating on a test is wrong because it just feels wrong.

Despite helping us understand our morality, you might not be satisfied with these two explanations of morality. The intuitionist pathway in particular leaves a bit to be desired. It’s somewhat of a shallow explanation as it immediately raises the question: well, if moral judgments are based on gut feelings, where do these moral gut reactions come from? For example, where does the gut reaction that cheating on a test is wrong come from? Why did same-sex marriage feel wrong to people in the past but now feels right? And, moreover, why do actions that have no harmful consequences, such as burning an American flag alone in the woods, sometimes feel immoral? In a series of studies, my colleagues and I tried to answer this question.

From an evolutionary perspective, morality has played a role in humans’ lives for a very, very long time. Potentially, then, a basic evolutionary factor might explain why we feel like some actions are immoral while others are not. In trying to identify such a factor, we considered the possibility that immoral actions generally break the pattern of behavior that people are used to. That is, actions that we view as immoral tend to be irregular, unusual, or abnormal. For instance, cutting someone with a knife or peeing on a stranger are definitely not normal, regular behaviors.

Given that immoral actions tend to be irregular or unusual, we wondered whether people’s general sensitivity to irregularities—their discomfort in response to actions or things that break the pattern of what they are used to—may evoke the negative gut responses that lead people to judge something as immoral. For example, cheating on a test violates the typical “pattern” of behavior that we are used to: generally, people keep their eyes focused on their own exam. And, the fact that cheating breaks the normal pattern may make us feel negatively about cheating, leading us to judge it as morally wrong. If this idea is correct, people who feel more uncomfortable about irregularities in their environments – including even non-social inconsistencies, such as broken patterns of geometric shapes – should condemn immoral actions more strongly.

To test this idea, we conducted two studies with over 500 participants examining whether people’s discomfort towards non-social irregularities is linked to their moral judgments. For example, we tested whether feeling uncomfortable when seeing simple broken patterns of geometric shapes, such as a row of triangles with one triangle out of line, is associated with judging immoral actions as more wrong and wanting to punish those actions more harshly.

Our results showed found exactly this effect.  Participants who were more sensitive to broken geometric patterns also judged moral violations, such as stealing from someone and peeing on a stranger, as more morally wrong. And, when asked to play the role of a court judge, participants who were more bothered by the broken geometric patterns punished these violations with higher fines and longer jail time. Finally, in line with the intuitionist pathway described above, participants’ sensitivity to broken geometric patterns was more strongly related to their moral judgments if they tended to rely heavily on their gut feelings.

What do these findings tell us? First, although people are not aware of it, something as simple as our sensitivity to irregularities can affect our morality. Second, moral shifts across time and situations may be driven, in part, by the degree to which people judge particular behaviors as irregular or abnormal. For example, same-sex marriage was viewed as irregular and abnormal in the 1980s, and this may be a reason why many people judged such unions as immoral. However, as same-sex marriage became more normalized, such unions weren’t as unusual and didn’t activate people’s discomfort to irregularities as much. As a result, people suddenly didn’t feel that negative gut feeling anymore. Voilà, same-sex marriage no longer seemed immoral.

Strikingly, this means that if you change people’s perceptions of an action away from being irregular or abnormal, they should judge that action as more moral. We directly tested this idea in a third study. In this study, participants read the same moral violations as earlier, such as cutting someone with a knife or peeing on a stranger. Except now, we told participants to imagine that they were in an alternate society in which these behaviors were actually very normal and accepted—everyone was peeing on one another! Our question was whether describing these originally immoral actions as common and accepted would lead participants who were sensitive to irregularities to suddenly judge these immoral actions as more moral.

This is exactly what we found. Participants who really disliked the broken patterns of geometric shapes were more likely to show moral relativism—their moral judgments depended on the surrounding cultural norms. In line with the historical shift in attitudes toward same-sex marriage, participants who imagined that the behaviors were common and accepted thought that the originally immoral behaviors were not that immoral anymore. Whether a behavior is moral or not, then, is determined, at least in part, by whether that behavior is “usual” or “common” in a specific time period or situation.

But why does our sensitivity to irregularities affect our morality? Why aren’t our moral judgments informed solely by reason and deliberation? Perhaps automatically judging irregular behaviors as immoral evolved because it was efficient and adaptive. By leading people to judge irregular behaviors as immoral, people’s sensitivity to irregularities may have deterred them from engaging in unusual behaviors. This, in turn, should have led people to conform to the actions of others—a tendency that can help people survive in a group and ultimately heighten the survival of group members. 

That being said, the modern world is very different from the hunter-gatherer societies in which our sensitivity to irregularities may have evolved. I’m not so sure that we need this sensitivity anymore to live moral lives and survive. Remember, our sensitivity to irregularities can misfire. For example, this sensitivity likely led many people to judge same-sex marriage as immoral as recently as 20 or 30 years ago.

The lesson here, then, is that if you come across something that you think is weird or strange, don’t be so quick to trust your gut feeling that it is immoral or wrong. It may well be immoral. But it might simply be unusual. Unless you think carefully about your gut reactions, you’ll incorrectly classify many unusual behaviors as immoral, leading to unfounded prejudices and intolerances.


For Further Reading

Gollwitzer, A., Martel, C., Bargh, J. A., & Chang, S. W. (2020). Aversion towards simple broken patterns predicts moral judgment. Personality and Individual Differences160, 109810.


Anton Gollwitzer is completing his Ph.D. in psychology at Yale University. His interests are perversely diverse and span across social psychology, clinical psychology, and human behavior more generally. See www.antongollwitzer.com for a peek at the projects he’s currently working on.

 

How the Political Primary Season Creates Psychological Tribes

I have a confession: I’m a political junkie who HATES primary season. I’ve been involved in political activism since before I could vote. I have a productivity blocker set to keep me off Politico during work. I have political convictions and opinions, and I love to talk about them, but something about primary season makes my skin crawl.

This year we have only a Democratic primary (because there is a Republican incumbent), so the divisions we are seeing are among the Democrats. But both sides get this way during primary season.  Most striking right now is seeing people who are all part of the progressive Left suddenly become fierce opponents. Sanders’ supporters vs. Warren supports vs…. well, I suppose it makes sense given that the candidates themselves are opponents.

But why do so many of us go along for this ride and start to trash members of our own party? Once we’re committed to a particular candidate, why do the negative attributes of other candidates suddenly come into sharp relief? Why do we become so much more willing to believe negative press about the other candidates and so dismissive of negative press about our own preferred  option? Why do we see supporters of other candidates as uninformed, blind fools, or disingenuous actors?

It reminds me of a type of experiment that’s been conducted many times in the past 50 years.  If you were a participant in one of those experiments, you and other participants in the study would be divided into two groups based on some arbitrary criterion—say, whether you overestimated or underestimated the number of dots in a picture, or whether you preferred an abstract painting by Klee vs. Kandisnky. You’d then be asked to distribute money between someone in your group and someone in the other group. The money isn’t going to you personally, and you won’t be interacting with these people further, and there’s no opportunity for them to pay you back. So, there’s no good reason to divide the money unequally between people in your group and people in the other group. In fact, you don’t even know who any of these people are! But if you’re like most people in these studies, you’ll probably give more money to people in your group than people in the other group.

Unfairly distributing money is just the tip of the iceberg. You might also be asked to evaluate members of the two groups.  Knowing nothing about your group other than that you’re a member of it, you still might find yourself rating the members of your group in more positive terms than members of the other group.  Similarly, if you’re asked to evaluate something created by members of the other group, all the flaws stand out to you, whereas you’re willing to overlook the weaknesses in work created by members of your own group. And if a member of your group  does something unethical or a little unfair? Well, that’s just to be expected, but when someone from the OTHER group does the same thing, it just goes to show how awful people from that other group can be, doesn’t it?

This research procedure in which people are assigned to arbitrary groups is known as the Minimal Groups Paradigm, and for half a century, social psychologists have used it to study intergroup conflict. The idea is to strip away all the history, ideology, excess baggage, and real differences that we see between real social groups so that we can see whether similar conflicts arise when the groups are essentially meaningless. And, results have consistently showed that even these bare bones groups are sufficient to create bias and conflict. By being assigned membership in these meaningless groups, we favor the group we belong to over the group we don’t belong to.

So I’ve been wondering whether the supporters of different candidates from the same party do the same thing? Perhaps identifying with a candidate is similar to being placed in a minimal group. This identification might lead a Warren supporter to view Sanders’ followers as more sexist, might cause a Sanders supporter to see Warren as too Capitalist, and might lead a Buttigieg supporter to view the others as unrealistic. It might lead all of them to see the policies of the other camps as more poorly argued and to focus on the bad behavior of another candidate’s campaign staff, while justifying similar behavior from people on their side.  Add to this the fact that the effects of the Minimal Groups Paradigm increase when groups are in competition with each other. If we’re focusing on the primary horse race, then all of these sources of bias should be in overdrive!

Let me clarify that I don’t think the differences between supporters of Sanders, Buttigieg, Biden, Gabbard, or the other Democratic  candidates are as trivial as the differences between people who overestimate versus underestimate dots in the Minimal Groups Paradigm. Political groups differ in important ways in terms of policy preferences and priorities, demographics, life experiences, and so on. But it’s worth noting that behavior not unlike what we see between supporters of different political camps can arise without any basis in true, reasoned differences of opinion.

So, what can we do to do unify warring tribes and promote cooperation within a party before the general election? How can we make sure that people’s actions in the political space are determined by their values and not by the quirks of their tribalistic minds?  The answer may come from another classic study in social psychology.  Muzafer Sherif orchestrated conflict between two groups of boys at a summer camp. By dividing the boys into two groups and having the groups compete with one another in baseball games, tug-of-war, and other contests, Sherif led the boys to become so hostile toward one another that the two groups were unable even to watch a movie together without taunting one another and fighting. But the researchers were able to completely eliminate this conflict over the course of only a few days.

The key to unifying the two groups wasn’t having them merely interact or talk with one another about their differences. Instead, the two groups were united by having them work together to solve problems set up by the researchers. For example, the two groups had to work together to tow a bus that had “broken down” and fix a water supply that had been blocked by the researchers. Pursuing these common goals completely eliminated hostility between the two groups, and subsequent research has found that the same thing happens when adults from opposing groups work together toward common goals. When we see ourselves facing a common enemy or needing to work together for our shared interest, we start to see ourselves has being part of a bigger, unifying group, and old divisions recede.

This is, I think, where attempts to unify the Democratic party around Hillary Clinton in 2016 failed. Some (though certainly not all) supporters of Bernie Sanders did not feel that they were pursuing the same goal as Clinton supporters and the Democratic party at large. Their goal was not “stopping Trump” but instead, “stopping neoliberalism,” a goal that did not unite them with the broader Democratic party, thus maintaining divisions and conflict between factions of the party. If the Democratic Party hopes to win in this fall’s election, Democrats will need to agree on some common goals and perhaps pack their love for their own candidate (and their animosity toward other candidates) during the primary process.  In that way, they can retain a shared identity and a sense of common cause after the nominee is chosen, just like the boys in Sherif’s summer camp study.  

Or perhaps I’ll just take a nap now and wake up when it’s time to vote on Super Tuesday.


For Further Reading

Stafford, T. (2013). What does it take to spark prejudice in humans? BBS Future. https://www.bbc.com/future/article/20130409-what-sparks-prejudice-in-humans

Brewer, M.B. (1979). In-group bias in the minimal intergroup situation: A cognitive-motivational analysis. Psychological Bulletin, 86, 307-324.

Brewer, M.B. (1996). When contact is not enough: Social identity and intergroup cooperation. International Journal of Intercultural Relations, 20, 291-303.

Greenaway, K.H., Wright, R.G., Willingham, J., Reynolds, K.J., & Haslam, S.A. (2015). Shared identity is key to effective communication. Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, 41, 171-182.

Sherif, M. (1958) Superordinate goals in the reduction of intergroup conflict. American Journal of Sociology, 63, 349-356.

Xiao, Y.J. & Van Bavel, J.J. (2019). Sudden shifts in social identity swiftly shape implicit evaluation. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 83, 55-69.

 

Alysson E. Light is an Assistant Professor of Social Psychology at University of the Sciences in Philadelphia. Outside of work, she volunteers as a community organizer, working on local and state elections.

 

 

Apply to Host the Next Summer Institute for Social and Personality Psychology

The 2023 SPSP Summer Institute for Social and Personality Psychology (SISPP) just wrapped up and the SISPP Committee is looking for our next host institution! Be a part of this two-week summer experience for pre-doctoral students by hosting the program. By all accounts, the summer institute has been a success; student attendees and faculty instructors rave about the opportunity, and you can see that feedback below!

Submit your letter of interest by October 15, 2023.

Requirements

Criteria for a U.S.-based SISPP site are: 

  • Availability to host 100 students and 10-12 faculty in the second half of July.
  • A reasonably large social psychology program (at least three or four active faculty) to work on local arrangements and supply one or two course co-instructors. An honorarium is provided for both local organizers and faculty that teach during SISPP. 
  • A university conference division that is experienced in running conferences and can handle the details of registration, meal tickets, assigning rooms for the SISPP students, etc.
  • An attractive location (in terms of natural beauty, cultural and social opportunities, etc.) where people will want to come. 
  • Access to transportation (proximity to a major airport). 
  • If possible, the availability of some financial support (or in-kind contributions) from the host university, to supplement existing funding from NSF and SPSP. 
  • Appropriate facilities for instruction, informal meetings, participant access to e-mail, etc. 

Application 

  • Prepare a statement (approximately one page long), describing how your proposed site meets the above requirements, and including any additional information the committee should consider
  • Email SPSP Executive Director Rachel Puffer at [email protected], by October 15, 2023
  • The committee will review all statements, then proceed to negotiations with sites that appear to best meet the criteria, and reach a final decision by mid-November. 

Recent Student Feedback

"Feeling bittersweet as I leave #SISPP and all the amazing people I met there. From bonding over board games to important discussions about research and careers, I couldn't have been happier to have this experience the past two weeks. The future of social psych is in good hands."
- Emily Esposito

"Y'all stop what you doing because #SISPP is THE place to be! I absolutely loved the last couple weeks at Ohio State with such an amazing group of social/personality students. I've created lifelong friendships, collaborations, and family with these folx! Thanks, SPSP."
- Troy A. Kearse, Jr.

"I feel very lucky to have met and befriended so many incredibly smart, funny, and genuinely wonderful people at #SISPP 2023! Truly one of the best and most formative experiences of my career and I can't wait to see y'all again at SPSP soon! Thank you for everything!"
- Jason Proulx

"Nothing quite recharges my intellectual battery like learning from and being surrounded by brilliant & fierce scholars in my field and getting to know kind & generous people. The future is bright y'all!"
- Apoorva Sarmal

"Just wrapped up the incredible SPSP summer school #SISPP and I feel absolutely inspired! The passion there was infectious, and the camaraderie among fellow attendees made the experience even more enriching. Thanks for an unforgettable experience. Grateful for these friendships!"
- Ke Wang

Past host institutions have included  

  • University of Colorado, Boulder (2003) 
  • University of Michigan, Ann Arbor (2005) 
  • University of Texas, Austin (2007) 
  • Northwestern (2009) 
  • Princeton University (2011) 
  • University of California – Davis (2013) 
  • Northeastern University (2015) 
  • University of Southern California (2017) 
  • New York University (2019) 
  • Ohio State University (2023)

 

Welcoming the New Character & Context Editorial Team

As of July 1, a new editorial team has taken the reins of SPSP's flagship blog—Character & Context. SPSP is excited to welcome new Editor-in-Chief Jennifer Crocker and her Associate Editors, Andy Luttrell and Julie Garcia!

Character & Context explores the latest findings from research in personality and social psychology. The blog's topics span the full range of human experience, such as aggression, romantic attraction, prejudice, emotions, morality, persuasion, friendship, helping, conformity, decision-making, and group interaction, to name just a few. The editorial team will be reviewing and refining new submissions, guiding authors through the editing process.

We would also like to thank outgoing Editor-in-Chief Judith Hall and her Associate Editors H. Colleen Sinclair and Leah Dickens for dedicating their time and energy to ensuring the success of Character & Context. SPSP is excited to build on that momentum with the new editorial team.

Meet the new editorial team below and please reach out to [email protected] or Jennifer Crocker at [email protected]. If you are interested in submitting a post for Character & Context, please contact Dr. Crocker directly at the email address listed above.

Editor-in-Chief

Jennifer Crocker

Jennifer Crocker headshotJennifer Crocker is a Professor and Ohio Eminent Scholar in Social Psychology, Emerita, at the Ohio State University. Dr. Crocker has made seminal contributions in two distinct research fields within social psychology: Social Stigma and work on Self and Identity. These areas are linked by Dr. Crocker's focus on how people strive to gain and maintain self-esteem and the ensuing consequences of these strivings. Currently, Dr. Crocker studies self-esteem, contingencies of self-worth, and the costs of pursuing self-esteem as a goal.

Dr. Crocker has served in a variety of leadership roles at SPSP, including her tenure on the Executive Committee and her term as president of the Society. She has also served as president of the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI), the International Society for Self and Identity, and Divisions 8 and 9 of APA. Dr. Crocker is also highlighted on SPSP's Heritage Wall of Fame, which honors those who have made a significant impact in personality and social psychology.

Associate Editors

Julie Garcia

Julia Garcia headshotJulie Garcia is a Professor in the Psychology and Child Development Department, and Faculty Director of Program Improvement in Academic Programs and Planning at California Polytechnic State University, San Luis Obispo. Her research focuses on the situational cues that inform social identity meanings, and how people cope when these cues suggest possible devaluation. As a whole, Dr. Garcia's research aims to improve the lives of others by finding solutions that could improve intergroup dynamics, enhance representation in STEM, and foster adaptive negotiation between multiple social identities.

In addition to her role on the Character & Context Editorial team, Dr. Garcia serves on SPSP's Board of Directors as Member at Large, Outreach and Advocacy.

Andy Luttrell

Andy Luttrell headshotAndy Luttrell is an Associate Professor of Psychological Science at Ball State University. His research centers on people's opinions, including when and how those attitudes change. Dr. Luttrell is especially interested in what happens when people moralize their attitudes and how moral persuasive rhetoric can sometimes be compelling and sometimes backfire. He also studies the feeling of ambivalence and the stability of people's opinions over time. This research has looked at many different opinions, including attitudes toward social, environmental, political, and consumer issues.

Dr. Luttrell is also the host of Opinion Science, a podcast that explores the science behind our opinions, where they come from, and how they change.

--

Please join SPSP in welcoming the new editorial team of Character & Context! SPSP looks forward to working with Drs. Crocker, Garcia, and Luttrell to raise awareness of new and compelling research in personality and social psychology.

 

Inclusion of LGBTQ+ Scholars in Social and Personality Psychology: Ongoing Efforts and Future Challenges

Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, Trans, Queer, and other sexual and gender minority (LGBTQ+) people face barriers to inclusion in academia. In recognition of Pride Month, SPSP has invited us, as organizers of LGBTQ+ initiatives within SPSP, to reflect on the experiences of LGBTQ+ people in social–personality psychology.

Barriers Faced by LGBTQ+ People in Social–Personality Psychology

LGBTQ+ social–personality psychologists face many of the same challenges that LGBTQ+ people face more broadly. After decades of touch-and-go progress, anti-LGBTQ+ discrimination and violence are on the rise in the United States and throughout the world. In the United States alone, over 320 anti-LGBTQ+ bills have been introduced in state legislatures in 2022 so far, more than any recent year. LGBTQ+ individuals continue to face targeted harassment and violence based solely on their gender identity or sexual orientation. For example, in 2021 at least 375 transgender and gender diverse (TGD) individuals were murdered worldwide due to their gender identity or expression, including at least 45 TGD individuals in the United States. Meanwhile, members of both sexual and gender minority groups continued to face high rates of hate crimes both in the United States and the world more generally. Moreover, LGBTQ+ individuals face broad, systematic bias that contributes to, among other things, poorer health, employment disparities, and unequal access to housing and education. Even at SPSP events specifically, LGBTQ+ people are more likely to have experienced ambiguous instances of exclusion.

It is against this troubling backdrop that LGBTQ+ social–personality psychologists seek to find their place within their academic community. In some ways, the LGBTQ+ community has made great strides towards representation within the field of social–personality psychology. As of 2020, more than 15% of SPSP members identified with a non-heterosexual sexual orientation, an increase from 12% in the year before. Gender minority groups are less well represented; only around 1% of SPSP members identified with a non-cisgender gender identity in 2020. The growing diversity of sexual orientation and gender identity is primarily concentrated among early career scholars, particularly for gender minority scholars: Only 0.5% of senior members of SPSP reported a gender minority identity. This lack of senior representation means that few LGBTQ+ members hold positions of power in academia or can serve as role models for their earlier-career counterparts.

Beyond representation, LGBTQ+ social and personality psychologists face structural hurdles at every stage of their academic career. From attending graduate school to pursuing an academic job, the near requirement of making long-distance moves for their careers separates LGBTQ+ academics from their communities and support networks. The remote locations of many colleges and universities, some far from established LGBTQ+ communities, mean that many LGBTQ+ scholars are either mired in isolation or pushed out of academia for not wanting to be. For those who decide to stay in academia, the onus of finding a supportive and inclusive community often falls on their own shoulders, adding to the stress that already comes with navigating academic environments. Even when LGBTQ+ scholars do persist and surround themselves with social support, they might still confront a host of challenges that disproportionately plague LGBTQ+ professionals in science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM) fields, such as harassment, professional devaluation and exclusion, less access to career opportunities and resources, and various health and wellness issues. These structural and interpersonal issues faced by LGBTQ+ people in social–personality psychology can pose threats to their retention and make advocacy for them crucial at SPSP and beyond.

How SPSP is Addressing Barriers Faced by LGBTQ+ People in Social–Personality Psychology

Advocacy for LGBTQ+ members at SPSP has a long history. Over 20 years ago, Lisa Aspinwall and Lisa Diamond founded the GLBT Alliance in Social and Personality Psychology (GASP), an SPSP affiliate. GASP hosts a lunch at SPSP's annual convention aimed at providing mentoring to LGBTQ+ students. This initiative has been a crucial step towards leveling the playing field for early career LGBTQ+ scholars by connecting them with mentorship. Because many of the faculty mentors are LGBTQ+ themselves, this initiative has also gone a long way towards increasing the visibility of senior role models for early career LGBTQ+ scholars.

More recently, SPSP provided funding for the "Here and Queer" initiative, which seeks to provide a new avenue for community-building among LGBTQ+ students and early career social-personality psychologists. The initiative launched at SPSP's 2022 convention with a successful virtual and in-person social networking event and aims at expanding its scope of offerings to continue building social connections between LGBTQ+ social–personality psychologists year-round.

SPSP's additional diversity initiatives (e.g., diversity graduate and undergraduate travel and registration awards, the SPSP climate survey, etc.) are also inclusive of sexual and gender minority scholars and thus contribute to their inclusion beyond the LGBTQ+-specific initiatives.

Looking Forward: What More Can Be Done?

Despite current progress, SPSP can and should do more to advocate for LGBTQ+ social–personality psychologists, particularly those who have been traditionally neglected by queer activism. Queer advocacy often presumes and caters to a "default" LGBTQ+ person who is cisgender, White, able-bodied, and American. Indeed, many historical and contemporary queer initiatives have not merely overlooked members of the LGBTQ+ community who do not fit this default, but actively excluded and marginalized them. It is imperative that SPSP and its leaders ensure that advocacy efforts for its LGBTQ+ members decenter Whiteness, support their intersectional identities, and honor their diverse lived experiences.

Making the support for LGBTQ+ SPSP members more inclusive also means taking seriously the challenges that often accompany queer activism. For example, although creating queer spaces—such as GASP luncheons and Here and Queer socials—allows for some members of the LGBTQ+ community to feel safe and supported, such spaces might do little for those members of the community who are not "out" (i.e., those who conceal their LGBTQ+ identities). Being in such spaces puts attendees at risk of identification and makes conspicuous a set of identities for which people continue to face persecution, even though individuals who are not "out" or who are questioning their identities could potentially benefit most from having a supportive community. In other words, visibility is a double-edged sword and can have divergent effects for LGBTQ+ SPSP members, and future initiatives should weigh issues like this moving forward. Beyond this, it is vital that advocacy efforts extend beyond the confines of SPSP and into the world around us; as Lewin wrote, "research that produces nothing but books will not suffice."

As a collective of scholars of social and personality psychology, our society is uniquely positioned to build not only an academic community, but a society that is equitable, supportive, and inclusive of all LGBTQ+ scholars. Social and personality psychologists should thus harness our collective expertise and get to work.


Author Biographies

Joel Le Forestier is a PhD candidate at the University of Toronto, where he studies intergroup relations and quantitative methods. He specializes in how members of stigmatized groups navigate intergroup contexts, prejudice and prejudice reduction, and social-psychological interventions.

Ryan Lei is an assistant professor of psychology at Haverford College. He takes an intersectional approach in understanding how children develop and use social categories.

Catherine Wall is a graduate student at Virginia Commonwealth University where she takes an intersectional approach to understanding and, importantly, ameliorating the downstream health consequences of bias and discrimination.

Y. Andre Wang is an Assistant Professor of Psychology at the University of Toronto. His research focuses on understanding how people connect abstract ideas to concrete experiences in the domains of attitudes and interpersonal processes.

Sheila Brownlow

Sheila Brownlow is Professor and Chair in the Department of Psychology at Catawba College, a private liberal-arts college in the small—yet vibrant—city of Salisbury, NC. She earned her BA in Psychology in 1984 from the University of Massachusetts at Boston, and her PhD from Brandeis University in 1990. In both undergraduate and graduate school she had passionate social and personality psychology professors who nurtured her love for both fields and who were incredibly supportive, even when she chose to spend her career at an institution that focuses on undergraduate teaching. 


What led you to a career in social and personality psychology?

I always loved social psychology—how could I not?  Our sub-discipline is the most interesting in psychology.  And I enjoy research, but I enjoy teaching research in social psychology even more.  I cannot even imagine what a semester would be like without students and their research.  Even through the pandemic I’ve been face-to-face (or, rather, mask-to-mask) since August, 2020.
 

What do you appreciate most about SPSP?

At a small school faculty wear many hats.  My content hats are social and personality psychology.  I think our field has the most interesting journals (Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin is a favorite). Yet every article I read, or every talk I hear at a conference, has to be processed through my “how do I convey this to 20-year olds?” filter. 

My other hat—my biggest hat—is the one for the lucky person who is responsible to teach research methods to all of our students.  One of our biggest challenges as teachers is to produce scientifically-literate students who can navigate the mass of misinterpreted data and false information about social behavior.  I’m glad that the focus on replication and reproducibility has been driven by members of SPSP, and that it was originally concentrated in research in social and personality psychology.  This focus is great not only because it helps students understand that science is self-correcting when more data are collected and as the world changes the context of data collection, but it also legitimizes replications as acceptable research topics.  I am convinced that our greatest contribution as psychologists is helping students learn how to evaluate evidence so that they can become more responsible citizens.   
 

What makes my career path unique?

I loved research in social and personality psychology since my very first courses as an undergraduate.  I originally intended to major in the natural sciences, but was reeled in when I realized that I could do research (exciting!) about people (more exciting!).  But I wasn’t very focused in my research interests, finding endless rabbit holes.  When I was beginning my career, the knowledge that I would have to be narrow in research interests disquieted me.  I liked teaching, and thought I would focus there, never predicting that I would be 32 years and counting at a small school in the South (I’m originally from Massachusetts).  I found out pretty quickly that teaching research in social processes was my real passion.  Now, anything that piques my students’ interests, or mine, is an avenue for research.  So, I’ve been all over the board—from superstition to point-light technique, from language in social media to women in science—and I still feel as though at any time I could start down a new trail.  I’m proud to say that it has been 30 years since I’ve published a study without at least one student as co- or lead author.  I can’t imagine a different career path.

 

Bringing Social Psychology to the Policymakers

The 1954 court decision in Brown vs. Board of Education lent a delayed blow to the legal legacy of Jim Crow, nullifying the oft-cited “separate but equal” justification for racial segregation in public schools. Races could be separated beforehand under the pretense that their required equal status is still maintained because separate facilities, services, etc., equaled each other in quality. A magnanimous courtesy that remained in writing only.

A key conviction that drove the court’s decision was that separating races caused “feelings of inferiority” among the black community. This conviction was famously inspired by experiments conducted by psychologists Mamie and Kenneth Clark, in which black children attending segregated schools consistently chose white dolls over black dolls and judged white dolls as nicer.

This contribution approaches sacred lore in the minds of many psychologists, as it symbolizes the aspiration and possibility of changing people’s daily lives for the better. After all, long hours of administrative work and wall-to-wall meetings are not front and center in the psychology-as-a-career sales pitch. Instead, a life of truth pursuit and changing the world often draws people to social and personality psychology. The reality is that this initial zeal often fades into the background, making way for the anxieties of finding employment in a competitive job market.

Even for those who attempt an escape from the academic publishing treadmill, adversity awaits. Pushing to make a broader impact with research is often confronted with political agendas, institutional inertia, and an impatient public with a desire for unequivocal answers.

Dr. Lani Shiota, an Arizona State University associate professor, is part of the SPSP Government Relations Committee which seeks to help psychologists translate research into policy. Recently, she was invited to Capitol Hill as part of a yearly event held by the Consortium of Social Science Associations, where social scientists are able to make the rounds in congressional offices.

“I learned more about how our government actually works in that one day than in my entire education,” says Dr. Shiota. The biggest lesson was how information is relayed to members of Congress: young (often unpaid) staffers “sit there for 8 hours a day or longer, listen to people and condense what people had to say into a short report”. An experience many of them liken to “drinking from a fire hose.”

These congressional reports, however, can be incredibly influential on policy decisions, highlighting the need to have information that legislative staff can digest and remember.

Psychologists, however, are trained to write 40-page manuscripts filled with caveats and hesitant suggestions. Dr. Shiota thinks we need to be better trained to succinctly summarize our research.

“The crucial thing right now is that we as scientists need to get a lot, a lot, a lot, a lot better at communicating our knowledge in ways that are useful for policymakers. If you are speaking with them, you have 30 to 60 seconds to make your point. If you’re writing, the best-case scenario is you have a page. Realistically, you have a bullet point,” she says.

Condensing research, though, can lead to the loss of nuance. This is especially true when trying to make recommendations on the basis of tentative research.

“This goes a little more deeply at the heart of our comfort zone as scientists,” explains Dr. Shiota. “There’s good reason for [tentativeness in communicating science] because when applying scientific knowledge, people often do misinterpret it and overextend it. But if you’re a policymaker, you have to make a decision now with the information that is currently available. We need to be able to say there’s a lot we don’t know, but here is our best bet right now and you should act on that.”

When pressed about whether this approach could threaten scientists’ credibility and potentially remove their seat at the table with decision-makers, Dr. Shiota reminds us that we “don’t have a seat at the table now to lose.”

However, there are organizations ready to help. The Research-to-Policy Collaboration (RPC), for example, works to match researcher expertise with legislative staff. Scientists who wish to participate are sent consultation requests, which can then be done through virtual or in-person meetings. For those interested in exploring possible careers that apply research to policy, there are several congressional fellowships available through the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI) and the American Psychological Association (APA).

Chelsea Crittle, a PhD student at Tufts interested in racial justice, recently completed a summer fellowship through SPSSI which exposed her to a plethora of policy-related experiences in Washington, DC. “I was able to give a speech at the Department of Education on gun policy, attend policy hearings and briefings, and meet with congresspeople from my district.”

While national politics often loom large in our minds, having an impact on policy and people’s lives does not begin and end in Washington. “One thing researchers need to realize is that they can have a profound impact on local policy,” says Chelsea. During her fellowship, she corresponded with several social psychologists in New Jersey who became concerned when the government introduced proposals to have armed guards at local schools to combat gun violence.

“These psychologists did not have any particular expertise or research on the subject, but their community rallied around them since they were able to bring in valuable research and inspire confidence.” Chelsea adds that the two psychologists were able to meet regularly with parents from the school, present them with relevant information, and ultimately gather enough momentum to lobby the school board out of the position. In the end, no armed guards were implemented.

Chelsea’s experience goes to show that you don’t need to have research that speaks to titanic legal cases decided in the Supreme Court to move the needle. Whether it be through better communication of our research or working with community organizers at the local level, psychologists can begin to have an increased footprint in the daily lives of ordinary people.

Black History Month: Notable Psychologists

February 2019 marks the 93rd year of Black History Month. However, at the conception of Black History Month in the 1920s, the documentation or scholarly reports on Black history hardly existed. Furthermore, much of the legacy of Black history in America has been marked by the suppression of Black voices, stories, triumphs, and achievements. 

While the scholarship of Black history has grown and today we can find articles recognizing the works of Black pioneers in science and psychology, there are undeniable, ongoing challenges. For example, with poignant and disturbing irony, this month has been marked by news stories demonstrating a continuing history of discrimination, marginalization, and dehumanization of African Americans (e.g., Virginia official's yearbook photos, Gucci blackface sweater, Liam Nesson's racist interview confession). These stories represent painful realities about prejudice and racism in America and they demand attention and action. Yet, we should not allow them to overshadow or distract from a time designated for recognition and celebration of those whose stories have historically been eclipsed and obscured. 

The prejudice and bias behind these stories are reflective of the very reason we need to dedicate time to recognize and celebrate Black history and why we should be vigilant to observe it. Furthermore, as history is made in the present, we should celebrate notable figures not only posthumously, but presently and proactively. Therefore, in honor of Black History Month, this article is dedicated to those contemporary psychologists that are making history through their daily work. Although we celebrate Black History Month during the shortest month of the year, there is certainly no shortage of incredible Black scientists making waves across the disciplines of psychology. Below, we have featured some of these contemporary, distinguished, and advancing Black social and personality psychologists who are innovating, enhancing, and representing excellence in the field.  

"History is the sum total of what all of us do on a daily basis," -- Margot Lee Shetterly (author of Hidden Figures)

The following list is in no way an exhaustive catalog of all Black and/or African American psychologists who have and/or are making significant contributions to psychology. This list only includes people whom the author was able to contact, who gave consent to be included in this article, and who were "nominated" by their colleagues. Individuals are grouped by seniority and ordered alphabetically. 

Full Professors

Associate Professors

Assistant Professors

Full Professors

Stanley Gaines, Ph.D.

Dr. Stanley O. Gaines, Jr., is a Senior Lecturer of Psychology at Brunel University London. He received his B.S. and Ph.D. from the University of Texas at Arlington. In his research, Dr. Gaines has explored the impact of personality characteristics (e.g., attachment orientations, cultural values) and demographic characteristics (e.g., gender, ethnic group membership) on personal relationship processes (e.g., accommodation, interpersonal resource exchange). He is the author of Culture, Ethnicity, and Personal Relationship Processes (Routledge, 1997); Personality and Close Relationship Processes (Cambridge, 2016), which recently received a Distinguished Book Award from the International Association for Relationship Research (2018); and Identity and Interethnic Marriage in the United States (Routledge, 2017). Dr. Gaines has written and co-written more than 100 published articles and book chapters primarily in the fields of close relationships and ethnic studies.

Phillip Goff, Ph.D.

Dr. Phillip Atiba Goff is the inaugural Franklin A. Thomas Professor in Policing Equity at John Jay College of Criminal Justice. He earned his Ph.D. in social psychology from Stanford University. He is the co-founder and president of the Center for Policing Equity, and is a leading expert in contemporary forms of racial bias and discrimination, as well as the intersections of race and gender. Additionally, Dr. Goff serves as one of four Principal Investigators for the CPE’s National Justice Database, the first national database on racial disparities in police stops and use of force. Dr. Goff’s work has been supported by the National Science Foundation, Department of Justice, Russell Sage Foundation, W.K. Kellogg Foundation, Open Society Foundations, Open Society Institute-Baltimore, Atlantic Philanthropies, William T. Grant Foundation, the COPS Office, the Major Cities Chiefs Association, the NAACP LDF, NIMH, SPSSI, the Woodrow Wilson Foundation, the Ford Foundation, the Mellon Foundation, and Google.org.

James Jones, Ph.D.

Dr. James Jones is the Trustees' Distinguished Professor Emeritus of Psychological and Brain Sciences and Africana Studies and Director of the Center for the Study of Diversity at the University of Delaware. Dr. Jones earned a B.A. from Oberlin College an M.A. from Temple University, and his Ph.D. in social psychology from Yale University. In his recent work, he has explored the idea of diversity competency—the attitudes, motivation and skills that enable a person to seek out and interact with people across boundaries of difference. Dr. Jones has been the recipient of numerous awards such as the Lifetime Achievement Award of the Society for the Psychological Study of Ethnicity, Culture and Race (1999), the Kurt Lewin Award (2001), the Distinguished Psychologist Award by the Association of Black Psychologists (2007), the Lifetime Contribution to Psychology award from the American Psychological Association (2011), and the 2018 Gold Medal Award for Life Achievement in Psychology in the Public Interest (2018) among many others. 

Colin Leach, Ph.D.

Dr. Colin Wayne Leach is a Professor of Psychology & Africana Studies at Barnard College, Faculty Fellow at the Institute for Research in African-American Studies, and Graduate Faculty of Psychology in the Graduate School of Arts & Sciences at Columbia University. He earned his B.A. (1989) and M.A. (1991) from Boston University and his Ph.D. (1995) from University of Michigan. Dr. Leach’s research interests include status and morality in identity, emotion, and motivation; protest & resistance; prejudice & stereotypes; and Meta-theory, methods, and trans-disciplinary approaches (e.g., Africana Studies, social behavioral science). He is an elected fellow of the Society for Experimental Social Psychology and Society of Personality and Social Psychology and has held research fellowships from the U.C. Berkeley Chancellor, and well as the Ford and Raoul Wallenberg foundations. He is a 2017 recipient of the Kurt Lewin medal for scientific contribution from the European Association of Social Psychology, and his research has been supported by the (US) Ford Foundation, the (UK) Economic and Social Research Council, the European Science Foundation, and the (Dutch) Organization for Scientific Research. 

Jennifer Richeson, Ph.D.

Dr. Jennifer Richeson is the Philip R. Allen professor of psychology at Yale University and the director of the Social Perception and Communication Lab (SPCL). She earned her B.S. in psychology from Brown University, and her M.A. and Ph.D. in social psychology from Harvard University. The SPCL aims to examine the processes of mind that influence the ways in which people experience diversity. Areas of focus in her research include reactions to increasing diversity, stigma-based solidarity, emotion regulation following discrimination, and perceptions and reasoning about inequality. She is the recipient of many honors and awards including the John D. & Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation “Genius” Fellowship (2006), election to the National Academy of Sciences (2015), and the Mamie Phipps Clark and Kenneth B. Clark Distinguished Lecture Award (2019).

Rob Sellers, Ph.D.

Dr. Robert Sellers is currently the Charles D. Moody Collegiate Professor of Psychology and Education at the University of Michigan. Additionally, he is the Vice Provost for Equity, Inclusion, and Academic Affairs and one of the founders of the Center for the Study of Black Youth in Context. Dr. Sellers earned his B.A. from Howard University in 1985 and went on to earn a Ph.D. in personality psychology from the University of Michigan in 1990. His primary research has focused on the role of race in the psychological lives of African Americans. Notably, he and his students have developed a conceptual and empirical model of African-American racial identity, investigated the processes by which African American parents transmit messages about race to their children, and examined the ways in which African Americans suffer from and often cope with experiences of racial discrimination. For his work, he has won numerous honors and awards including the Theodore Millon Mid-Career Award in Personality Psychology from the American Psychological Foundation, the American Psychological Association Minority Fellowship Program Research Achievement Award, and the APAGS Kenneth & Mamie Clark Award for Outstanding Contribution to the Professional Development of Ethnic Minority Graduate Students.

Claude Steele, Ph.D.

Dr. Claude M. Steele is a Professor of Psychology at Stanford University and is best known for his work on stereotype threat and its application to minority student academic performance. His book, Whistling Vivaldi and Other Clues to How Stereotypes Affect Us, summarizes years of research on stereotype threat and the underperformance of minority students in higher education. Dr. Steele’s other lines of research have explored the self (e.g., self-image, self-affirmation) as well as the role of self-regulation in addictive behaviors. He received a B.A. in Psychology from Hiram College, an M.A. in Social Psychology from Ohio State University, and a Ph.D. in Social Psychology and Statistical Psychology from Ohio State University. For his contributions to the field, Dr. Steele has earned many awards and honors such as election to the American Academy of Arts and Sciences, the National Academy of Sciences, the National Science Board, the National Academy of Education, and the American Philosophical Society. Furthermore, he currently serves as a trustee of the Russell Sage Foundation, the John D. and Catherine T. MacArthur Foundation, and as a Fellow for both the American Institutes for Research and the American Academy of Political and Social Science. 

Cynthia Winston-Proctor, Ph.D.

Dr. Cynthia Winston-Proctor is a Professor of Psychology at Howard University, the Principal Investigator of the Identity & Success Research Lab, and the founder of Winston Synergy L.L.C. She earned her B.S. in psychology from Howard University and her Ph.D. in psychology and education from the University of Michigan. Her academic and practice work focuses on narrative personality psychology and the psychology of success of women within academic and corporate environments. Her work has been published broadly in numerous journals and edited books, such as Culture & Psychology, Qualitative Psychology, Journal of Research on Adolescence, and Learning, & Technology: Research and Practice. Dr. Winston-Proctor has been the recipient of honors such as the National Science Foundation Early Career Award for scientists and engineers and the Howard University Emerging Scholar Award. Moreover, Dr. Winston-Proctor’s professional service includes serving as an editor on the Editorial Board of the journal Qualitative Psychology, President of the Society of STEM Women of Color, a Member of the Board of Directors of the Alfred Harcourt Foundation, an Advisor to the Board of Directors of the Howard University Middle School of Mathematics and Science, and she was recently elected to the Society of Personology. 

Associate Professors

Mesmin Destin, Ph.D.

Dr. Mesmin Destin is an Associate professor at Northwestern University in the School of Education and Social Policy and the Department of Psychology, as well as a fellow of Northwestern’s Institute for Policy Research. He received his B.A. from Northwestern in Psychology and Sociology and earned his Ph.D. at the University of Michigan in Social Psychology. Dr. Destin directs a multidisciplinary lab group that investigates how social environments shape people’s identities and the consequences for motivation, behaviors, and trajectories in life, placing particular emphasis on understanding the ways that socioeconomic resources influence young people’s academic outcomes. Honors he has received include the William T. Grant Scholar Award (2016), the American Psychological Association Committee on Socioeconomic Status Emerging Leadership Award (2018), and the Distinguished Scientific Award for Early Career Contribution to Psychology (2019). 

Kristin Dukes, Ph.D.

Dr. Kristin Dukes was recently named the Dean for Institutional Diversity at Allegheny College. Previously she was an Associate Professor at Simmons where she was a member of the school’s Diversity and Inclusion Action Council, and played a substantial role in determining the college’s priorities and policies regarding equity and inclusion. Dr. Dukes earned her bachelor’s degree in psychology from Rice University and her master’s and doctoral degrees in social psychology from Tufts University with a research focus on stereotyping, prejudice, and discrimination. Her research also focuses on impression formation, intersectionality regarding race and gender, skin tone biases, obesity stigma, and attitudes toward substance use. She has been the recipient of several honors including being named a Featured Feminist Scientist by the Association for Women in Psychology.

Crystal Hall, Ph.D.

Dr. Crystal Hall is an Associate Professor of Public Policy and Governance at the Daniel J. Evans School of Public Policy and Governance at the University of Washington. She holds a B.S. from Carnegie Mellon University in both Decision Science and Policy and Management as well as a Ph.D. and M.A. in Psychology from Princeton University. Dr. Hall has worked at government agencies at the local, state, and federal levels – including having served as a Fellow on the White House Social and Behavioral Sciences Team and the Federal Office of Evaluation Sciences at the General Services Administration. She is also an Academic Affiliate of ideas42, and a Faculty Affiliate at both the University of Washington's West Coast Poverty Center (WCPC) and the Center for Studies in Demography and Ecology (CSDE). Currently, her research explores decision-making in the context of poverty, using the methods of social and cognitive psychology, along with behavioral economics. In addition to her scholarly work, Hall has provided guidance and training to community organizations, nonprofits, and government agencies seeking to implement tools from psychology and behavioral economics into the design and delivery of their programs and services. 

Lasana Harris, Ph.D.

Dr. Lasana Harris is currently a Senior Lecturer in Experimental Psychology at University College London. He completed his undergraduate education at Howard University in 2003 before earning his Ph.D. from Princeton University in 2007, under the supervision of Dr. Susan Fiske. He completed his post-doctorate research at New York University with Dr. Elizabeth Phelps in 2010, and has held faculty positions at both Duke University and Leiden University. He has published in top journals such as Psychological Science, NeuroImage, and Nature. Dr. Harris’ research uses an interdisciplinary social neuroscience approach to explore the neural correlates of person perception, prejudice, dehumanization, anthropomorphism, social learning, social emotions, empathy, and punishment. This work explores social, legal and economic decision-making, how people fail to consider other people’s minds, and extending minds to things that don’t have them. 

Marlone D. Henderson, Ph.D.

Dr. Henderson is an Associate Professor of Psychology at the University of Texas, Austin. He received his B.S. from Michigan State University (1999), and his Ph.D. from New York University (2006). Throughout his career, his research has explored social conflict, social judgments, prosocial behavior, and the role that basic cognitive processes play in promoting social harmony. Dr. Henderson has received various honors such as election to the Society for Experimental Social Psychology (2012) and the Stuart Cook Award for Excellence in Research in Social Psychology (2006) as well as being funded by groups such as the National Science Foundation and the Raikes Foundation. Additionally, he currently serves as one of the Associate Editors for the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Keith Maddox, Ph.D.

Dr. Keith Maddox is an Associate Professor of Psychology at Tufts University. He received his A.B. (1991) in psychology from the University of Michigan, and his M.A. (1994) and Ph.D. (1998) in social psychology from the University of California, Santa Barbara. At Tufts, he is the director of the Tufts University Social Cognition Lab which broadly explores the social cognitive aspects of stereotyping, and prejudice. He has published widely on topics like skin tone bias, racial and spatial categories in memory, confronting bias, and facilitating interracial dialogue. Dr. Maddox is the recipient of a number of grants and awards, including grants from the National Science Foundation, the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues, the Tisch College of Citizenship and Public Service, an SPSP Distinguished Service Award, and the Gerald R. Gill Distinguished Service Award from Tufts University.

Valerie Purdie Greenaway, Ph.D.

Dr. Valerie Purdie Greenaway is an Associate professor in the Department of Psychology at Columbia University, core faculty for the Robert Wood Johnson Health & Society Scholars Program (RWJ Columbia-site), and research fellow at the Institute for Research on African-American Studies (IRAAS) at Columbia. She completed her undergraduate work at Columbia University and went on to earn her Ph.D. at Stanford University as a student of Dr. Claude Steele. At Columbia, Dr. Purdie Greenaway also serves as Director for the Laboratory of Intergroup Relations and the Social Mind (LIRSM) where her research examines social identity threats and interventions, identity, politics, and power, the psychology of invisibility, and neurobiology and intergroup relations. She has earned grants from the National Science Foundation (NSF), Russell Sage Foundation, Spencer Foundation, and William T. Grant Foundation and has been the recipient of awards such as the Columbia University RISE (Research Initiative in Science and Engineering) award and Society for Personality and Social Psychology Cialdini Award.

Phia Salter Ph.D.

Dr. Salter is an Associate professor at Texas A&M University with a dual appointment in  Interdisciplinary Critical Studies (Africana Studies Program)  and Psychological & Brain Sciences (Social & Personality Psychology; Diversity Science Cluster). She earned her B.S. from Davidson College and her M.A. and Ph.D. in Social Psychology from the University of Kansas. Dr. Salter also directs her lab, the Culture in Mind Research Collaboratory (CMRC) which explores the various ways in which critical cultural-psychological perspectives can illuminate the social and cultural underpinnings of mind with a special focus on racism and oppression, collective memory (representations of history), self and identity, interpersonal and intergroup relationships, and academic achievement. Her research has been funded by groups such as the National Science Foundation and the Clara Mayo Grant Program. 

Keon West, Ph.D.

Dr. Keon West is a Reader in Social Psychology at Goldsmiths, University of London where he is the director of Equalab. He is also a council member for the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues and an editorial board member for the journal Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Dr. West earned his B.A. in French and Psychology at Macalester College and his Ph.D. from Oxford University in 2010. Following this, he was a post-doctoral research fellow at the University of Leeds and then a lecturer at the University of Roehampton before coming to Goldsmiths. His research covers topics such as gender roles, sexism, anti-LGBT prejudice, and specific prejudice-reducing interventions and has been featured in popular media outlets such as the BBC World Service, Radio 4, Channel 4, and the Guardian. Recently he was honored with the Michele Alexander Award for Scholarship and Service (2015), the SPSSI Award for Outstanding Teaching and Mentoring (2017), and a European Council Starting Grant (€7460,000). He has also been the recipient of grant funding from organizations such as The European Research Council, the Richard Benjamin Trust, AIDS-Free World, and the Independent Social Research Fund.

Assistant Professors

Tiffany Brannon, Ph.D.

Dr. Tiffany N. Brannon is an Assistant Professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, and is the director of the Culture and Contact Lab. She received her Ph.D. and M.A. in Social Psychology from Stanford University and her B.A. in Psychology from Florida International University. Her research examines socio-cultural identities in negatively stereotyped groups such as African Americans and Latina/o/x Americans; and she investigates the potential for these identities to serve as a psychological resource — one that can facilitate a variety of individual and intergroup benefits. Dr. Brannon’s work has been featured in top journals such as the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Psychological Science, and Social Issues and Policy Review. She is on the editorial board for the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Frontiers in Psychology, and is a founding columnist for the Behavioral Scientist, as well as an elected council member for the Society for the Psychological Study of Social Issues (SPSSI). Furthermore, she is a Hellman Fellow, the inaugural recipient of the UCLA Undergraduate Research Week Faculty Mentor award, and winner of the Emerging Implicit Bias Scholar Award from the Charles Hamilton Houston Institute for Race and Justice at Harvard University.

Cydney Dupree, Ph.D.

Dr. Cydney Dupree is an Assistant professor of Organizational Business at Yale University in the School of Management. She received her undergraduate degree from Brown University in psychology and went on to earn her M.A. and Ph.D. at Princeton University in Psychology and Social Policy. Her current lines of research aim to investigate how socio-political attitudes and stereotypes influence verbal and nonverbal outgroup behavior, how associations between race and status influence occupational preferences, and how situational and individual factors influence prosocial outgroup behavior. Her work has appeared in leading psychology and multi-disciplinary journals, including Proceedings of the National Academy of Science, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, and Current Opinion in Psychology as well as popular press outlets such as the Washington Post and Business Insider.

Sarah E. Gaither

Dr. Sarah Gaither is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Psychology & Neuroscience and a faculty affiliate at the Cook Center on Social Equity at Duke University. Prior to Duke, she was a Provost’s Postdoctoral Scholar in the Psychology Department and Fellow at the Center for the Study of Race, Politics and Culture at the University of Chicago. She earned her Ph.D. and M.S. in Social Psychology from Tufts University and her B.A. in Social Welfare from UC Berkeley. Her research explores how a person’s social identities and experiences across the lifespan motivate their social perceptions and behaviors in diverse settings. Her work has been featured in top journals such as Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, and Journal of Social Issues. Dr. Gaither has been funded by groups such as Clara Mayo, National Science Foundation, Ford Foundation, Russell Sage, and the Spencer Foundation, and has been named a rising star by the APS. Additionally, she currently serves as a guest editor for Self & Identity's upcoming special issue on non-traditional identities.

Lori Hoggard, Ph.D.

Lori Hoggard is an Assistant Professor of the Social Psychology area and an affiliate of the Health Psychology program at Rutgers University-New Brunswick. She received her B.A. from Brooklyn College City University of New York (CUNY) and her Ph.D. in Personality and Social Contexts Psychology from the University of Michigan. Thereafter, she completed a postdoctoral fellowship in the Department of Psychology and Neuroscience and at the Center for Health Equity Research within the Department of Social Medicine at the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill. At Rutgers, she is the director of the Racism, Identity, Coping, and Health Lab and her research focuses on racial discrimination as a chronic psychosocial stressor that heightens African Americans’ risk for physical (e.g., cardiovascular disease) and mental (e.g., depression and anxiety) health concerns. She has been the recipient of honors from organizations like the Ford Fellowship and has received funding from the National Science Foundation.

India Johnson, Ph.D.

Dr. India Johnson is currently an assistant professor at Elon University but will be joining the Department of Psychology at Butler University in the fall of this year. She earned her B.A. from Purdue University (Indianapolis) and her M.A. and Ph.D. from The Ohio State University. Dr. Johnson's research focuses on issues relevant to stereotyping, prejudice, and persuasion. In her current lines of work, she is investigating how role models framed or endorsed as allies, can increase women and women of color's (i.e. Black women) feelings of belonging and trust in STEM environments, and how to create more inclusive environments for individuals belonging to underrepresented groups (URG) often associated with negative stereotypes. Additionally, she is the founder and principal consultant at EVOLVE Diversity Consulting Services, where she is dedicated to helping others support and cultivate diversity through the practice of inclusion. 

Valerie Jones Taylor, Ph.D.

Dr. Valerie Jones Taylor is an Assistant Professor of Psychology and Africana Studies at Lehigh University. She received her B.A. from the University of Texas at Austin and her Ph.D. from Stanford University, and has previously held an appointment as an Assistant Professor at Spelman College. Currently, her research examines how people engage in interracial interactions—what makes them go well, and the factors that may make them fall apart. While research has shown the benefits of intergroup contact, greater contact among individuals with different social identities creates opportunities for social identity threat—the concern or worry that one may be treated or judged negatively based on one’s social group membership. Addressing this issue across several lines of research, Dr. Taylor seeks to answer various identity-related questions, particularly how people engage in interracial interactions when negative group stereotypes are salient. Finally, Dr. Taylor has been awarded grants from the National Science Foundation and the Ford Foundation, and published in a number of journals including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin, and Cultural Diversity and Ethnic Minority Psychology.

Neil Lewis Jr., Ph.D.

Dr. Neil Lewis, Jr. is an Assistant Professor of Communication and Social Behavior at Cornell University, and an Assistant Professor of Communication Research in Medicine in the Division of General Internal Medicine at Weill Cornell Medical College. Additionally, he is a Faculty Fellow of the David R. Atkinson Center for a Sustainable Future, and a Faculty Affiliate of the Cornell Behavioral Economics and Decision Research Center, Center for Health Equity, Center for the Study of Inequality, and Roper Center for Public Opinion Research. Dr. Lewis earned his B.A. in Economics and Psychology at Cornell University and his M.S. and Ph.D. in Social Psychology at the University of Michigan. His research examines how the interplay between people’s identities and social contexts influence people’s motivation to pursue their goals, and their success in goal pursuit efforts. Lewis is one of the authors of Science Magazine’s “Letters To Young Scientists” column and is on the Editorial Boards of Perspectives on Psychological Science and Analyses of Social Issues and Public Policy. He previously co-edited the Michigan Journal of Sustainability and a special issue of the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology.

Sylvia Perry, Ph.D. 

Dr. Sylvia Perry is an Assistant Professor at Northwestern University. She completed her bachelor's degree in Psychology at the University of North Texas in Denton, Texas (2002), and she received her master's (2006) and doctorate (2010) in Social Psychology from the University of Illinois at Chicago, where she was mentored by Drs. Linda Skitka and Mary Murphy. Additionally, Dr. Perry was a National Institutes of Health postdoctoral associate at Yale University from 2010-2014 under the advisement of Drs. John Dovidio and Michelle van Ryn (Mayo Clinic) and held an appointment as an Assistant Professor of Psychological Science at the University of Vermont (UVM) from 2014 - 2016. Currently at Northwestern, she is the Principal Investigator of the Social Cognition and Intergroup Processes (SCIP) Lab investigating how bias awareness develops, and the implications of bias awareness for prejudice reduction, intergroup contact, and health disparities. Dr. Perry’s work has been featured in journals such as the Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, Social Science & Medicine, and the Journal of Research in Personality, and she has been funded by the Eunice Kennedy Shrive National Institute of Child Health and Human Development.

Jason Okonofua, Ph.D.

Dr. Jason Okonofua is an Assistant Professor in the Psychology Department at the University of California at Berkeley. He earned his B.A. in psychology and African American studies from Northwestern University and his Ph.D. in psychology from Stanford University. Dr. Okonofua’s work spans contexts such as education, criminal justice, and business as he investigates the ways negative stereotypes can contribute to inequality in these contexts and how that process can be dismantled. Recently he was the recipient of the Society for Personality and Social Psychology Cialdini Award. Furthermore, his work has been featured in top journals like Psychological Science and mainstream media outlets like MSNBC, PBS NewsHour, Huffington Post, the New York Times, and the Wall Street Journal. 

Clara Wilkins, Ph.D.

Dr. Clara L. Wilkins is an Assistant Professor in the Department of Brain and Psychological Sciences at Washington University in St. Louis. She completed her Ph.D. and M.S. at the University of Washington and her B.A. with honors at Stanford University. As a fellow of the Society of Experimental Social Psychology, she serves on several editorial boards including the Journal of Personality and Social Psychology and Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin. Dr. Wilkins’ research examines prejudice, stereotyping, and the self and how social change (e.g. racial and gender progress) affects high-status groups’ perceptions of victimization. She also examines how variation in racial and ethnic minorities’ physical appearance shapes stereotyping and identification. The over-arching goal of her work is to understand social inequities in order to minimize their negative effects on individuals, groups, and society.