Search for: All records

Construal level theory has been extraordinarily generative both within and beyond social psychology, yet the individual effects that form the empirical foundation of the theory have yet to be carefully probed and precisely estimated using large samples and preregistered analysis plans. In a highly powered and preregistered study, we tested the effect of temporal distance on abstraction, using one of the most common operationalizations of temporal distance (thinking about a future point in time that is one day vs. one year from today) and one of the most common operationalizations of abstraction (preference for more abstract vs. concrete action representations, as assessed by the Behavioral Identification Form). Participants preferred significantly more abstract action representations in the distant (vs. near) future condition, with an effect size of d = .276, 95% CI [.097, .455]. We discuss implications, future directions, and constraints on the generality of these results. 

Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has exacerbated inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this article, we call on psychological scientists—focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations—to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss whom our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society. 

The science behind implicit bias tests (e.g., Implicit Association Test) has become the target of increased criticism. However, policymakers seeking to combat discrimination care about reducing bias in people’s actual behaviors, not about changing a person’s score on an implicit bias test. In line with this argument, we postulate that scientific controversies about implicit bias tests are irrelevant for antidiscrimination policy, which should instead focus on implicit bias in actual discriminatory behavior that occurs outside of awareness (in addition to instances of explicit bias). Two well-documented mechanisms can lead to implicit bias in actual discriminatory behavior: biased weighting and biased interpretation of information about members of particular social groups. The policy relevance of the two mechanisms is illustrated with their impact on hiring and promotion decisions, jury selection, and policing. Implications for education and bias intervention are discussed. 

Science is undergoing rapid change with the movement to improve science focused largely on reproducibility/replicability and open science practices. This moment of change—in which science turns inward to examine its methods and practices—provides an opportunity to address its historic lack of diversity and noninclusive culture. Through network modeling and semantic analysis, we provide an initial exploration of the structure, cultural frames, and women’s participation in the open science and reproducibility literatures ( n = 2,926 articles and conference proceedings). Network analyses suggest that the open science and reproducibility literatures are emerging relatively independently of each other, sharing few common papers or authors. We next examine whether the literatures differentially incorporate collaborative, prosocial ideals that are known to engage members of underrepresented groups more than independent, winner-takes-all approaches. We find that open science has a more connected, collaborative structure than does reproducibility. Semantic analyses of paper abstracts reveal that these literatures have adopted different cultural frames: open science includes more explicitly communal and prosocial language than does reproducibility. Finally, consistent with literature suggesting the diversity benefits of communal and prosocial purposes, we find that women publish more frequently in high-status author positions (first or last) within open science (vs. reproducibility). Furthermore, this finding is further patterned by team size and time. Women are more represented in larger teams within reproducibility, and women’s participation is increasing in open science over time and decreasing in reproducibility. We conclude with actionable suggestions for cultivating a more prosocial and diverse culture of science.