Stefanie Simon’s research while affiliated with Siena College and other places

Historically, psychological models of how people make judgments of discrimination have relied on a binary conceptualization of intergroup relations, making it unclear how people make judgments of discrimination in diverse, multigroup contexts. We propose that groups can vary in the extent to which they fit the prototype for targets of discrimination and that this variation influences judgments of discrimination in ambiguous circumstances. The present research examined attributions to discrimination when job applicants are rejected for a white-collar position. People consistently made more attributions to discrimination (ATDs) when managers rejected Black American as compared to Asian American job applicants, and when managers rejected Asian American as compared to White American job applicants. People also made more ATDs for rejected Black American as compared to Latino American applicants, but ATDs were similar for Latino and Asian American applicants. Overall, similar patterns were observed in majority White American samples and a Black/African American sample; only an Asian American sample did not make more ATDs for rejected Black than Asian American applicants. Six experiments (N = 2,321) found strong support for the relative fit hypothesis and suggest that, in a white-collar employment context, White Americans are a distant fit to the prototype for targets of discrimination, Asian and Latino Americans are an intermediate fit, and Black Americans are a close fit.

As growth mindset interventions increase in scope and popularity, scientists and policymakers are asking: Are these interventions effective? To answer this question properly, the field needs to understand the meaningful heterogeneity in effects. In the present systematic review and meta-analysis, we focused on two key moderators with adequate data to test: Subsamples expected to benefit most and implementation fidelity. We also specified a process model that can be generative for theory. We included articles published between 2002 (first mindset intervention) through the end of 2020 that reported an effect for a growth mindset intervention, used a randomized design, and featured at least one of the qualifying outcomes. Our search yielded 53 independent samples testing distinct interventions. We reported cumulative effect sizes for multiple outcomes (i.e., mindsets, motivation, behavior, end results), with a focus on three primary end results (i.e., improved academic achievement, mental health, or social functioning). Multilevel metaregression analyses with targeted subsamples and high fidelity for academic achievement yielded, d = 0.14, 95% CI [.06, .22]; for mental health, d = 0.32, 95% CI [.10, .54]. Results highlighted the extensive variation in effects to be expected from future interventions. Namely, 95% prediction intervals for focal effects ranged from −0.08 to 0.35 for academic achievement and from 0.07 to 0.57 for mental health. The literature is too nascent for moderators for social functioning, but average effects are d = 0.36, 95% CI [.03, .68], 95% PI [−.50, 1.22]. We conclude with a discussion of heterogeneity and the limitations of meta-analyses.

Why are women under-represented in the field of economics relative to men? We propose that stereotypes associated with economists contribute to women's interest in the field. We test the predictions that economists are stereotypically associated with low levels of communion and high levels of agency and that this type of stereotype content is associated with women's lower interest in the field. In Study 1 (N = 883), stereotypes associated with people in the field of economics were masculine, characterized with low levels of communion and high levels of agency. In Study 2 (N = 182), undergraduate women were less interested than men in majoring in fields that share the same pattern of stereotyping found for economists in Study 1. The results from this study have important implications for increasing young women's interest and representation in the field of economics.

Women are more likely than men to perceive institutional sexism. In the present study, we examined the gender gap in perceptions of a legal case in which a female plaintiff claims she was a victim of institutional gender discrimination by an employer. Participants were randomly assigned to receive information about institutional forms of sexism (or not) prior to learning the facts of the case. In addition, participants were randomly assigned to take the female plaintiff's perspective (or remain objective) while reviewing the case. In isolation, sexism awareness and perspective-taking both independently eliminated the gender gap in perceptions of discrimination. However, contrary to expectations, the gender gap reemerged among participants who were made aware of sexism prior to perspective-taking such that women perceived more discrimination than men. Implications for interventions to increase perceptions of institutional sexism are discussed.