Cognitive Complexity and the Perception of Subtle Racism

Reading Literary Fiction Is Associated With a More Complex Worldview

What are the effects of reading fiction? We propose that literary fiction alters views of the world through its presentation of difference-different minds, different contexts, and different situations-grounding a belief that the social world is complex. Across four studies, two nationally representative and one preregistered (total n = 5,176), we find that the reading of literary fiction in early life is associated with a more complex worldview in Americans: increased attributional complexity, increased psychological richness, decreased belief that contemporary inequalities are legitimate, and decreased belief that people are essentially only one way. By contrast, early-life reading of narrative fiction that presents more standardized plots and characters, such as romance novels, predict holding a less complex worldview.

Dominance motivated delusions: Whites with high social dominance orientation perceive equal amounts of institutional racism between Blacks and Whites

Whites display an asymmetry when detecting discrimination—disparate treatment from high-status groups directed toward low-status groups constitutes discrimination but not the opposite. Whites also believe they experience just as much racial discrimination as Blacks. This latter pattern could be especially true for Whites with higher social dominance orientation (SDO)—preference for intergroup dominance and inequality. Three studies (including one pilot study) investigated whether Whites with higher (vs. lower) SDO perceived examples of institutional and individual instances of racial discrimination as evidence of racism when happening to White (vs. Black) victims. Results revealed partial support for our prediction that the asymmetry in discrimination detection for Whites with higher (vs. lower) SDO would be opposite to the previously identified asymmetry, especially for examples of institutional (vs. individual) discrimination. Implications are discussed in the context of the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests and 2021 Capitol siege.

Measurement invariance and nomological validity of the Attributional Complexity Scale: Evidence from Estonia, France, India, United States, and Vietnam

International Business researchers have recently become interested in attributional complexity (AC) in the context of cross-cultural leadership effectiveness. Despite this recent surge in interest in this construct, we know very little about its measurement properties in cross-cultural situations. Given that attributions vary across cultures, verifying the validity (measurement invariance and nomological validity) of the Attributional Complexity Scale (ACS) is a research imperative. In study I, we examine the measurement invariance of ACS using a reduced version of the original scale (ACS-18) in five countries. The results suggest that the ACS shows metric invariance in that it has a similar factor structure across the five societies examined and in two other independent samples. In study II (France), we provide evidence of AC’s predictive validity based on its relationship to a key construct in its nomological network, namely, isomorphic attribution. In study III (United States), we provide additional evidence of nomological validity by showing the relationship between AC and biculturalism. Our results demonstrate the importance of AC and imply that researchers in cross-cultural contexts can safely use the ACS-18 without risking substantive misinterpretation. We discuss results, future research directions, implications, and limitations of the study.

Psychology Cannot Afford to Ignore the Many Harms Caused by Microaggressions

In an ongoing debate, Scott Lilienfeld (2019) continues to question the merits and meaning of microaggressions research. Key issues include how to define microaggressions, whether microaggressions cause measurable harm, whether microaggression education is helpful, and defining the most important next steps in the microaggressions research agenda. I discuss the importance of understanding microaggressions in context and as they relate to pathological stereotypes about groups, given that this is critical to identifying them. I summarize some of the many longitudinal studies linking psychological and medical problems to experiences of everyday discrimination. In addition, the literature indicates that victims of microaggressions experience further harms when trying to respond to offenders, but there is little research to support any specific interventions, including those advanced by Lilienfeld. I discuss the importance of believing and supporting those reporting experiences of microaggressions. I conclude that there is a need for more research examining (a) how to reduce the commission of microaggressions, (b) how to best respond to offenders in the moment in a way that mitigates harm for all persons involved, and (c) how clinicians can best help those who are suffering as a result of microaggressions as the next frontier in this important work.

Microaggressions: Clarification, Evidence, and Impact

In a 2017 article in Perspectives on Psychological Science, Scott Lilienfeld critiqued the conceptual basis for microaggressions as well as the scientific rigor of scholarship on the topic. The current article provides a response that systematically analyzes the arguments and representations made in Lilienfeld’s critique with regard to the concept of microaggressions and the state of the related research. I show that, in contrast to the claim that the concept of microaggressions is vague and inconsistent, the term is well defined and can be decisively linked to individual prejudice in offenders and mental-health outcomes in targets. I explain how the concept of microaggressions is connected to pathological stereotypes, power structures, structural racism, and multiple forms of racial prejudice. Also described are recent research advances that address some of Lilienfeld’s original critiques. Further, this article highlights potentially problematic attitudes, assumptions, and approaches embedded in Lilienfeld’s analysis that are common to the field of psychology as a whole. It is important for all academics to acknowledge and question their own biases and perspectives when conducting scientific research.

Developing and Evaluating an Innovative Structural Competency Curriculum for Pre-Health Students

The inclusion of structural competency training in pre-health undergraduate programs may offer significant benefits to future healthcare professionals. This paper presents the results of a comparative study of an interdisciplinary pre-health curriculum based in structural competency with a traditional premedical curriculum. The authors describe a new evaluation tool, the Structural Foundations of Health Survey © (2016), developed to evaluate structural skills and sensibilities. The authors use the survey to evaluate two groups of graduating seniors at Vanderbilt University-majors in an interdisciplinary pre-health curriculum titled Medicine, Health, and Society (MHS), and premed science majors-with particular attention to understanding how political, cultural, economic, and social factors shape health. Results suggest that MHS majors identified and analyzed relationships between structural factors and health outcomes at higher rates and in deeper ways than did premed science majors. MHS students also demonstrated higher understanding of structural and cultural competency in their approaches to race, intersectionality, and racial health disparities. The skills that MHS students exhibited represent proficiencies increasingly emphasized by the MCAT, the AAMC, and other educational bodies that, in an era of epigenetics and social determinants, emphasize how contextual factors shape expressions of health and illness.

Individual differences in the propensity to make attributions to prejudice

Whether racism is perceived in ambiguous situations may depend on individual differences in perceivers’ beliefs about the prevalence of racial prejudice and discrimination, trivialization of targets’ concerns, and vigilance and confidence in recognizing instances of racial prejudice. In Studies 1 and 2, we develop a psychometrically sound measure of these beliefs, the Propensity to Make Attributions to Prejudice Scale (PMAPS), and provide evidence that the PMAPS is related to individual differences in the justification and suppression of prejudice. Studies 3 and 5 provide evidence that the PMAPS predicts attributions to prejudice in a variety of situations. Theoretically consistent racial and gender differences in the PMAPS were found in a large sample (Study 4). Together, these data provide evidence supporting the reliability and validity of the PMAPS and provide insights about the role that beliefs and expectations play in third-party observers’ judgments about expressions of prejudice.

Perception of Subtle Racism

Identifying contemporary racism has been problematic as this type of racism, namely subtle racism, is difficult to discern, and the actions in question can be easily justified by other causes. The present study examined how group status and legitimizing ideologies predict perception of subtle racism. White (high status) and Black (low status) college students completed measures of legitimizing ideologies. Later, they watched a video clip on an ambiguous interracial conflict, recalled the clip, and judged whether the situation was attributable to racism. Findings showed that members of the low status groups and/or individuals who were less likely to endorse ideologies were more likely to perceive subtle racism. In addition, social dominance orientation indirectly predicted the perception of subtle racism through system justification legitimizing ideologies. Contrary to our hypothesis, group status did not change the relationship between ideologies and perceptions of subtle racism.

Attributional complexity and leadership

Despite the importance of attributional complexity (AC) of managers in cross-cultural contexts, empirical tests of the relationship between AC and the degree to which managers make isomorphic (accurate) attributions are absent. This study provides a crucial contribution to the literature by focusing on the hitherto unexamined empirical link between AC and accurate attributions. This study also contributes to the literature by drawing on the psychological and leader attribution literature to delineate the processes resulting from the information processing of attributionally complex individuals who use complex schemata and then linking these processes to leadership in cross-national contexts. This article tests the theoretical propositions of the model focusing on the process through which AC of managers affects the accuracy of their attributions, subsequently leading to their behaviors that create the climate for leader effectiveness. We provide an empirical test with data from manager–subordinate dyads in France and India. The following hypotheses are supported: AC of managers is linked to accuracy of attributions, as perceived by subordinates and performance enhancement strategies of managers are linked to isomorphic attributions and to key outcome variables (subordinate satisfaction and leadership perceptions), with power distance being a critical moderator. By examining and showing evidence for the moderating impact of power distance, we also contribute to the cross-cultural management literature on leadership. Results are discussed, along with limitations/directions for future research.

Perceiving race relevance in everyday events: Target race matters, perceiver race does not

Perceptions of the relevance of race in everyday situations may matter for intergroup relations. Extending previous research, this work examines Blacks’ and Whites’ perceptions of race relevance in positive versus negative everyday situations affecting Black or White individuals. It also examines whether Black and White participants expect more intergroup disagreement regarding those perceptions than actually exists (i.e., interracial pluralistic ignorance). In Study 1, White participants saw significantly more race relevance in negative situations affecting Black (rather than White) individuals, whereas positive events seemed only marginally more race relevant when they featured Blacks. Study 2 replicated this pattern among White and Black participants. Furthermore, Study 2 uncovered interracial pluralistic ignorance: both Black and White participants expected to agree with their racial ingroup more than their racial outgroup, even though both groups reported similar race relevance perceptions. Participants’ own race relevance ratings and symbolic racist attitudes moderated the degree of expected disagreement.