How and when does syntax perpetuate stereotypes? Probing the framing effects of subject-complement statements of equality

Lab Meets World: the Case for Use-Inspired Basic Research in Affective Science

We join others in envisioning a future for affective science that addresses society's most pressing needs. To move toward this vision, we consider a research paradigm that emerged in other disciplines: use-inspired basic research. This paradigm transcends the traditional basic-applied dichotomy, which pits the basic goal of fundamental scientific understanding against the applied goal of use in solving social problems. In reality, these goals are complementary, and use-inspired basic research advances them simultaneously. Here, we build a case for use-inspired basic research-how it differs from traditional basic science and why affective scientists should engage in it. We first examine how use-inspired basic research challenges problematic assumptions of a strict basic-applied dichotomy. We then discuss how it is consistent with advances in affective science that recognize context specificity as the norm and consider ethical issues of use being a complementary goal. Following this theoretical discussion, we differentiate the implementation of use-inspired basic research from that of traditional basic science. We draw on examples from recent research to illustrate differences: social problems as a starting point, stakeholder and community engagement, and integration of research and service. In conclusion, we invite affective scientists to embrace the "lab meets world" perspective of use-inspired basic research as a promising pathway to real-world impact.

Who's the "Real" Victim? How Victim Framing Shapes Attitudes Toward Sexual Assault

People accused of sexual assault are often described as the "real" victim by their defenders, but the impact of "victim framing" on public opinion is unknown. We investigated this issue across four experiments (N = 2,614). Online U.S. adult participants read a report about an alleged sexual assault that framed the female accuser as the victim (of assault), framed the male alleged perpetrator as the victim (of false accusations), or was neutral about victimhood (baseline). Relative to those in the baseline condition, participants in the assault- and allegation-victim conditions generally expressed more support for the victim-framed protagonist and less support for the other protagonist. The consistency of these effects varied with how often the victim frame was instantiated and whether the report described a fictionalized or real-world case. Across all contexts, however, participants who identified the victim-related language as influencing their evaluations exhibited strong framing effects. This suggests that social-pragmatic reasoning is a key mechanism by which victim framing shapes moral judgments.