Search for: All records

Although individuals of Latin American heritage ( Latin Americans in short) are considered interdependent, they also value traits like uniqueness and positivity, like individuals of European American cultural heritage, who are considered independent. It remains unclear whether this inclination toward positivity extends to a bias in self-perception known as self-enhancement. Moreover, if Latin Americans are indeed self-enhancing, it is uncertain how these tendencies align with their interdependent cultural orientation. In this article, we report three studies ( N = 1,246) with three operationalizations of self-enhancement. We found that Mexicans, Colombians, and Ecuadorians show self-enhancement that is mostly similar in magnitude to European Americans. Notably, Study 3 found that self-enhancement is related to interdependence in Latin America: Unlike European Americans, Latin Americans in Ecuador exhibited stronger self-enhancement when interdependence is primed rather than independence. Our findings suggest that among Latin American individuals, self-enhancement not only exists but also reinforces interdependence. 

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.