John F. Dovidio’s research while affiliated with Yale University and other places

Weight stigma is widely recognized as a significant concern in health care. Studies indicate that as medical trainees advance through their training, their levels of weight bias may intensify. Such prejudices can lead to inferior care for higher-weight patients, underscoring the urgency for research that identifies factors that are protective against the development of weight bias. Prior findings have shown that the motivation to respond without prejudice is a key determinant of explicit bias across various contexts, yet its role concerning weight bias remains underexplored. In a 1-year longitudinal study of U.S. resident physicians (N = 3,507), we examined the associations between participants’ internal motivation (i.e., based on personal values) and external motivation (i.e., based on social pressures) to respond without weight-based prejudice on self-reported explicit weight bias, self-rated preparedness to treat higher-weight patients, and participation in bias-related training. We found that internal motivation predicted lower weight bias (across three measures) and greater self-rated preparedness to treat higher-weight patients (ps ≤ .001), whereas external motivation predicted higher-weight bias (ps < .001). Participants’ internal motivation also predicted their participation in bias-related training during the following year (ps ≤ .01). Each of these findings held when controlling for demographic variables and body mass index. Participants were young and predominantly White, so further research will be needed to generalize these findings to the broader population of health care providers. Taken together, these findings suggest that internal motivation to respond without weight-based prejudice may be a useful target for future bias-reduction intervention efforts.

Although a large body of research has focused on the determinants of stigma, multilevel approaches that can identify both micro- and macro-level influences are rarely employed. We adopted a multilevel perspective with data from 174,325 participants from 80 countries in two waves—Wave 5 (Study 1) and Wave 6 (Study 2) of the World Values Survey. We examined how country-level normative tightness-looseness and individual-level non-normativeness relate to stigma toward racial and ethnic out-groups and groups deviating from social standards. Preregistered analyses showed that for both waves individuals in normatively tighter (vs. looser) societies exhibited more stigma generally. Also, for both waves, individuals higher in non-normativeness demonstrated a greater level of stigma toward members of immigrant, racial, or ethnic out-groups while exhibiting a lower level of stigma toward groups deviating from social standards. The current work thus reveals how characteristics of both individuals and culture jointly affect stigma.

Psychological research has begun considering the dynamics involved in majority-group acculturation, which is the extent to which cultural majority groups adopt the culture of immigrants and minority groups. However, previous research has predominantly concentrated on reactions to 'immigrants' or 'minority groups' as a homogenous entity, overlooking the nuanced perceptions and varied valuations attributed to different groups. Recognizing the heterogeneity among immigrant and minority groups, the present work investigated the influence of several perceived characteristics of immigrant and minority groups on majority-group members' adoption of their cultures. Specifically, in three pre-registered studies-one correlational (Nparticipants = 201, Ntrials = 2814) and two within-subjects experimental (Nparticipants = 144 and 146, Ntrials = 720 and 730) designs with close to politically representative samples from the U.K. and U.S. -majority-group members were more willing to adopt immigrant and minority-group cultures that they perceived as warm, competent and moral because these perceptions made immigrants and minority groups seem indispensable to the identity and economy of the mainstream society. Our studies highlight the importance of considering the differentiated acculturation that majority-group members have to various groups within the same national context. We discuss the societal and cultural repercussions of this selective uptake of other cultures.

In this non-empirical article, which is intended as a decision-making resource for researchers , we identify issues surrounding data integrity that commonly arise in online survey research and we propose remediation strategies based on challenges we encountered during a particular pilot study as well as our collective experience with conducting online survey research. Using the metaphor of an onion, we peel off the layers of this complex problem, synthesize the various available strategies used across disciplines, and propose some novel ones based on our perspective as psychologists. Corresponding to this multi-layered problem, we propose multi-layered solutions to prevent illegitimate responding-by both humans and non-humans (robots or "bots" for short)-from compromising the quality of data collected via online survey research. The first layer entails strategic item selection and protective programming in survey development. The second layer involves astute advertising and recruitment tactics to minimize illegitimate responses during survey dissemination. The third layer includes algorithms and other mechanisms to identify suspicious responses for possible exclusion during data verification. When we peel off the layers and reach the core problem of illegitimate responses to online surveys-financial incentives-we will propose ways of navigating respondent reimbursement to mitigate their inadvertent harmful impacts on the research process. By proposing these solutions, we aim to protect the integrity of scientific inquiry in psychology, especially given how often this method is used in the discipline.

Research samples have historically overrepresented men, resulting in worse outcomes for women. Even when women are represented, inequity might persist due to underlying differences in how people reason about gender. Theories of androcentrism argue that, in general, people emphasize gender more about women than men. Based on this theory and building on prior archival work, we conducted three preregistered experiments (N = 1,315). Participants read scientific findings based either on all-male or all-female samples. For both, the gender homogeneity of the sample is a key limitation that should be noted when describing results. However, participants were more likely to pick women as a keyword to represent findings based on all-female samples (compared to leaving gender unlisted or listing both women and men) than to pick men to describe identical findings based on all-male samples. Grounded in androcentrism theory, this work has practical implications for accurate science communication and gender equity.

Background Scientific evidence indicates that HIV viral suppression to an undetectable level eliminates sexual transmission risk ("Undetectable=Untransmittable” or “U=U”). However, U=U messaging has been met with skepticism among sexual minority men (SMM) and others. In this survey-based experiment, we manipulated messaging about HIV risk and examined reactions and perceived message accuracy among US SMM. Methods SMM living with HIV ( n =106) and HIV-negative/status-unknown SMM ( n =351) participated in an online survey (2019-2020). Participants were randomly assigned to one of three messaging conditions, which varied by level of HIV sexual transmission risk associated with an undetectable viral load (No Risk [U=U]/Low Risk/Control). Participants reported reactions, message accuracy, and reasons for perceiving inaccuracy. We coded open-response data (reactions and reasons) into conceptual categories (e.g., “Enthusiasm”). We compared reactions, accuracy ratings, and reasons by condition and serostatus. Results In the No Risk Condition, common reactions were Enthusiasm (40.0%), Skepticism/Disagreement (20.0%), and Agreement (19.4%), reactions common to comparison conditions. A higher percentage of HIV-negative/status-unknown participants (24.1%) expressed Skepticism/Disagreement in the No Risk Condition compared with other conditions (3.2%-9.7%). Participants living with HIV were more likely than HIV-negative/status-unknown participants to perceive all messages as accurate. In the No Risk Condition, common reasons for perceiving inaccuracy were Risk Misstated (46.1%), Oversimplified/Caveats Needed (17.1%), and Personal Unfamiliarity/Uncertainty (14.5%), reasons common to comparison conditions. Across conditions, 10.3% of participants attributed message inaccuracy to misdefinition of undetectable. Conclusion Most SMM reacted favorably to U=U messaging. However, many—especially HIV-negative/status-unknown SMM—expressed skepticism. Interventions are needed to enhance U=U understanding and acceptance.

Increasing ethnic and racial diversity often fuels feelings of threat among ethnic-racial majorities (e.g., self-identifiedwhite Americans and European nationals). We contend that these threat perceptions depend on the policy context.Across four studies, we test whether more inclusive immigrant integration policies attenuate ethnic-racial majorities’ threat reactions. Studies 1 to 3 (n = 469, 733, and 1745, respectively) used experimental methods with whiteAmerican participants in the United States. Study 4 (n = 499,075) used secondary analysis of survey data compar-ing attitudes of nationals in 30 European countries and measured the impact of actual changes in diversity andpolicies over 10 years. Our results show that integration policies shape threat reactions even in those situationswhen increasing diversity could be seen as the most threatening: when narratives highlight the majority’s impend-ing minority position or when diversity suddenly increases. When policies are more inclusive toward immigrants,ethnic-racial majority participants report less threat (or no threat) in response to increasing diversity

Affirmative action refers to laws or government-mandated or voluntary policies or procedures designed to promote the equitable inclusion of members of certain historically excluded groups by granting members of these groups additional consideration for educational, economic, and employment opportunities. Affirmative action has traditionally been one of the structural ways to promote diversity in society. While much of the research on affirmative action has focused on the United States, affirmative action programs exist in many other countries in Europe, Asia, Africa, and South America. The approaches used internationally vary in many ways, most commonly with respect to the groups that the programs are designed to benefit and the degree to which group-based characteristics are considered in relation to other, merit-based credentials. For example, whereas the use of quotas in affirmative action is prohibited in the United States, affirmative action programs for college admission and federal employment in Brazil and India employ quotas for people of color. In 2023, India passed a law to reserve 33 percent of state and national legislative positions for women. India’s affirmative action policy, in which a person’s nationality, sex, religion, and caste are taken into account in education and employment by public and private organizations, is grounded in the country’s constitutional principles. Also, different countries justify having affirmative action policies to varying degrees by the goals of remediating past injustice, improving economics, promoting diversity, and achieving social justice. Who affirmative action benefits, how the policy is justified, how affirmative action programs are implemented, and the attitudes and ideologies of people viewing the program all contribute to the extent to which affirmative action is supported or opposed by people. While considering affirmative action internationally, this examination focuses on affirmative action in the United States, which has stimulated significant behavioral science research and generated considerable public controversy, in order to illuminate basic processes that shape the content and consequences of affirmative action. Support and opposition to affirmative action may both be grounded in principles of justice, but these are sometimes competing values. Specifically, this entry considers (a) a range of resources examining multiple facets of the topic, (b) assessments of the effectiveness of affirmative action, (c) reactions based on self- or group-interest, (d) individual differences in responses to affirmative action, (e) impact of the way the program is justified on support, (f) psychological consequences, (g) dynamics of help in relation to affirmative action, and (h) recent developments for promoting diversity.

PrEP has been reported to facilitate openness to serodifferent sexual partnerships among sexual minority men (SMM). However, other aspects of a sexual scenario likely come into play, including whether or not condoms are used and whether or not the partner living with HIV has an undetectable viral load. This online survey study evaluated the association between PrEP status and openness to serodifferent partnering, as well as the effects of various sexual scenario variables (condom use and partner’s viral load) among 268 HIV-negative SMM in the US. Each participant reported their PrEP status and rated their openness to serodifferent partnering in four sexual scenarios, which varied by condom use (with/without) and partner viral load status (detectable/undetectable). Analyses of covariance (ANCOVAs) were conducted to assess differences in openness to serodifferent partnering by PrEP status in each scenario, adjusting for background characteristics. A two-way repeated measures ANCOVA and a three-way mixed factorial ANCOVA, including PrEP status as a between-subjects variable, were also performed to assess the effects of condom use and partner viral load status on openness. Across all scenarios, current PrEP users expressed significantly greater openness to serodifferent partnering compared to participants who had never used PrEP. Current PrEP users were also more likely than former PrEP users to consider partnering with someone with an undetectable viral load without using condoms. Both PrEP users and PrEP-inexperienced individuals had greater openness to serodifferent partnering with a partner having an undetectable (vs. detectable) viral load, which was magnified by condom use among the latter.