Publications

We present a new composite indicator of depressed language and examine its utility to capture depressed affect among three nonclinical samples. Depressed individuals use more first person singular pronouns, more negatively valenced words, and fewer positively valenced words. Building on this previous research, we hypothesize that individuals under conditions of chronic or acute stress, a psychological state likely to evoke depressed affect, will evidence increased use of depressed language when compared with those not under stress. Across three studies examining different populations (university faculty, undergraduate college women, and gay men) using multiple markers of stress (perceived stress, stress appraisals, blood pressure), we find that depressed language is consistently positively associated with both acute and chronic stress. Our findings suggest that this measure of depressed language may serve as a useful tool for identifying depressed affect for both practitioners and researchers.

Across two studies, we examined whether the relationships among perceived weight stigma, maladaptive eating behaviors (Study 1 & 2), and weight gain (Study 2) were mediated by fear of fat (FOF). In Study 1, 189 participants completed measures of eating behavior (e.g., emotional and restrained eating), FOF, perceived weight stigma, and height and weight. In Study 2, a longitudinal design, participants reported their perceived weight stigma and FOF and had their height and weight measured; they then returned 10 weeks later to complete measures of eating behaviors (i.e., flexible restraint, riged restraint, and emotional eating) and have height and weight measured. We examined the predictive value of weight stigma at Session 1 on eating behavior and on weight gain at Session 2. Furthermore, we examined FOF as a mediator of these relationships. In Study 1, we found that FOF significantly mediated the positive relationship between perceived weight stigma and restrained eating behavior (b = .13, confidence interval [CI] [.09, .19]). In Study 2, we found that perceived weight stigma predicted weight gain over the 10-week period and that this relationship was mediated by both FOF (b = .31, CI [.03, .78]) and rigid restraint of eating (b = .07, CI [.002, .28]). Flexible restraint and emotional eating behavior were not mediators of the relationship between perceived weight stigma and weight gain. Fear of fat may be one process through which perceptions of weight stigma lead to maladaptive eating behavior and weight gain. Understanding this important process may lead to more effective healthy weight interventions.

Men increasingly identify as victims of gender discrimination, but it is unclear how people react to men who claim to be victims of gender bias. We examined how status-legitimizing belief endorsement (SLBs) and gender identification (GID) moderated men and women’s reactions to a man who claimed to have lost a promotion because of anti-male sexism or another cause. Consistent with theory that claiming bias against high-status groups reinforces the status hierarchy, SLB endorsement was associated with more positivereactions toward an anti-male bias claimant for both men and women. Group identification, in contrast, affects group-specific concerns and thus differentially predicted male and female participants’ reactions. Men evaluated the claimant more positively the more strongly they identified with their gender. The more women identified with their gender, the more negatively they evaluated the male claimant. We also demonstrated that SLBs and GID moderated the extent to which the claimant was perceived as sexist. We discuss how these reactions may perpetuate gender inequality.

Objective

Fear and stigmatization are often used to motivate individuals with higher body weight to engage in healthy behaviors, but these strategies are sometimes counterproductive, leading to undesirable outcomes. In the present study, the impact of weight-based stigma on cognition (i.e., inhibitory control) and food selection (i.e., calories selected) was examined among individuals who consider themselves to be overweight. It was predicted that participants higher in perceived weight stigma would perform more poorly on an inhibitory control task and order more calories on a food selection task when they read about discrimination against individuals with higher weight versus discrimination against an out-group.

Methods

Participants completed online prescreen measures assessing whether they considered themselves to be overweight and their perceptions of weight stigma. Individuals who considered themselves to be overweight were invited into the laboratory to complete tasks that manipulated weight-based discrimination, then inhibitory control and food selection were measured.

Results

The higher participants were in perceived weight stigma, the more poorly they performed on the inhibitory control task and the more calories they ordered when they read about discrimination against individuals with higher body weight. These relationships were not observed when participants read about discrimination against an out-group.

Conclusions

The present findings provide evidence that perceptions of weight stigma are critical in understanding the impact of weight-based discrimination. Additionally, these results have theoretical and practical implications for both understanding and addressing the psychological and physical consequences of weight-based stigma.

The current research examines how status‐legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) influence White people's perceptions of anti‐White bias, endorsement of zero‐sum beliefs, and support for Affirmative Action. We suggest that SLBs perpetuate inequality by increasing White people's perceptions of zero‐sum beliefs and anti‐White bias, which in turn lead to decreased support for Affirmative Action. White individuals primed with SLBs perceived greater anti‐White bias, endorsed greater zero‐sum beliefs, and indicated less support for Affirmative Action than individuals primed with neutral content. Mediation analysis revealed that the SLB prime decreased support for Affirmative Action by increasing perceptions of anti‐White bias. This research offers experimental evidence that SLBs contribute to White people's perceptions of anti‐White bias and to decreased support for Affirmative Action.

What leads people to espouse zero-sum beliefs (ZSBs) – the perspective that gains for one social group come at the cost of another group – and what are the consequences of those beliefs? We hypothesized that high-status groups (Whites and men) would be more likely than low-status groups (Blacks and women) to endorse ZSBs, particularly in response to increasing perceptions of discrimination against their own groups. We found that high-status groups endorsed ZSBs more when they contemplated increasing bias against their group than when they contemplated decreasing bias against their low-status counterparts. Furthermore, we demonstrated that greater ZSB endorsement corresponded with efforts to decrease outgroups' ability to compete in society and efforts to increase the ingroup's ability to compete. We discuss how this pattern may perpetuate social inequality.

In the current work, we examine the extent to which prejudice toward gay men and lesbian women may be driven in part by traditional gender norms and the violation of these norms that same-sex couples represent. Although these relationships have long been theorized, strong empirical evidence is lacking. Across two studies, men who strongly endorsed (Study 1) or were primed with (Study 2) traditional gender norms perceived relationship violence directed toward gay men as less severe, less in need of intervention, and more likely caused by the victim than participants low in gender norm endorsement or primed with neutral content. In contrast, traditional gender norms were less predictive of heterosexual men’s prejudice toward lesbian victims of relationship violence, and not predictive of heterosexual women’s prejudice toward gay and lesbian victims. Thus, the relationship between traditional gender norms and sexual prejudice appears to be strongest for heterosexual men’s prejudice toward gay men. 

Consensually held ideologies may serve as the cultural “glue” that justifies hierarchical status differences in society . Yet to be effective, these beliefs need to be embraced by low status groups. Why would members of low status groups endorse beliefs that justify their relative disadvantage? We propose that members of low status groups in the USA may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs (such as the belief in meritocracy) to the extent that these beliefs emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes. In two studies, among women, lower socioeconomic status women, and women of color, we found a positive relationship between the belief in meritocracy and well-being (self-esteem and physical health) that was mediated by perceived control. Members of low status groups may benefit from some system-justifying beliefs to the extent that these beliefs, such as the belief in meritocracy, emphasize the perception of control over future outcomes.

Although Whites are increasingly likely to perceive themselves as victims of racial bias, research provides little insight into how anti-White bias claimants are perceived. Two studies examined whether Whites' endorsement of status legitimizing beliefs (SLBs) moderates their reactions toward White discrimination claimants. In Study 1, Whites who rejected SLBs reacted less favorably to an anti-White bias claimant relative to one who made a nondiscriminatory external claim, whereas Whites who endorsed SLBs expressed equally positive attitudes toward an anti-White bias claimant and a non-claimant. In Study 2, Whites who were not primed with status legitimizing beliefs displayed negative reactions toward an anti-White bias claimant compared to a non-claimant, whereas those primed with SLBs expressed more positive attitudes and a desire to help the anti-White bias claimant. Implications for affirmative action litigation are discussed.