52% Yes, a signiicant crisis 3% No, there is no crisis 7% Don't know 38% Yes, a slight crisis 38% Yes, a slight crisis 1,576 RESEARCHERS SURVEYED M ore than 70% of researchers have tried and failed to reproduce another scientist's experiments, and more than half have failed to reproduce their own experiments. Those are some of the telling figures that emerged from Nature's survey of 1,576 researchers who took a brief online questionnaire on reproducibility in research. The data reveal sometimes-contradictory attitudes towards reproduc-ibility. Although 52% of those surveyed agree that there is a significant 'crisis' of reproducibility, less than 31% think that failure to reproduce published results means that the result is probably wrong, and most say that they still trust the published literature. Data on how much of the scientific literature is reproducible are rare and generally bleak. The best-known analyses, from psychology 1 and cancer biology 2 , found rates of around 40% and 10%, respectively. Our survey respondents were more optimistic: 73% said that they think that at least half of the papers in their field can be trusted, with physicists and chemists generally showing the most confidence. The results capture a confusing snapshot of attitudes around these issues, says Arturo Casadevall, a microbiologist at the Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health in Baltimore, Maryland. "At the current time there is no consensus on what reproducibility is or should be. " But just recognizing that is a step forward, he says. "The next step may be identifying what is the problem and to get a consensus. "

Hierarchies in the correlated forms of power (resources) and status (prestige) are constants that organize human societies. This article reviews relevant social psychological literature and identifies several converging results concerning power and status. Whether rank is chronically possessed or temporarily embodied, higher ranks create psychological distance from others, allow agency by the higher ranked, and exact deference from the lower ranked. Beliefs that status entails competence are essentially universal. Interpersonal interactions create warmth-competence compensatory tradeoffs. Along with societal structures (enduring inequality), these tradeoffs reinforce status-competence beliefs. Race, class, and gender further illustrate these dynamics. Although status systems are resilient, they can shift, and understanding those change processes is an important direction for future research, as global demographic changes disrupt existing hierarchies.

No abstract

Advances in natural language processing provide accessible approaches to analyze psychological open‐ended data. However, comprehensive instruments for text analysis of stereotype content are missing. We developed stereotype content dictionaries using a semi‐automated method based on WordNet and word embeddings. These stereotype content dictionaries covered over 80% of open‐ended stereotypes about salient American social groups, compared to 20% coverage from words extracted directly from the stereotype content literature. The dictionaries showed high levels of internal consistency and validity, predicting stereotype scale ratings and human judgments of online text. We developed the R package Semi‐Automated Dictionary Creation for Analyzing Text (SADCAT; https://github.com/gandalfnicolas/SADCAT) for access to the stereotype content dictionaries and the creation of novel dictionaries for constructs of interest. Potential applications of the dictionaries range from advancing person perception theories through laboratory studies and analysis of online data to identifying social biases in artificial intelligence, social media, and other ubiquitous text sources.

The racial categorization literature, reliant on forced-choice tasks, suggests that mixed-race targets are often categorized using the parent faces that created the racially mixed stimuli (e.g., Black or White) or their combination (e.g., Black–White multiracial). In the current studies, we introduce a free-response task that allows for spontaneous categorizations of higher ecological validity. Our results suggest that, when allowed, observers often classify Black–White faces into alternative categories (i.e., responses that are neither the parent races nor their combination), such as Hispanic and Middle Eastern. Furthermore, we find that the stereotypes of the various categories that are mapped to racially mixed faces are distinct, underscoring the importance of understanding how mixed-race targets are spontaneously categorized. Our findings speak to the challenges associated with racial categorization in an increasingly racially diverse population, including discrepancies between target racial identities and their racial categorizations by observers as well as variable stereotype application to mixed-race targets.

Research on social categorization continues, with one growth area being multiple categorization. Various approaches study questions that, although different in scope and content, potentially tap the same underlying processes. Current models that aim to understand judgments about targets who belong to multiple social groups include algebraic and nonalgebraic models of crossed categorization, as well as theories related to intersectionality and multiracial categorization. The literature on these models and theories highlights some strengths and limitations. The review discusses potential overlap between models that have mostly advanced independently of each other. Future research can take a more encompassing stance to acknowledge this overlap.

No abstract

The spontaneous stereotype content model (SSCM) describes a comprehensive taxonomy, with associated properties and predictive value, of social-group beliefs that perceivers report in open-ended responses. Four studies (N = 1,470) show the utility of spontaneous stereotypes, compared to traditional, prompted, scale-based stereotypes. Using natural language processing text analyses, Study 1 shows the most common spontaneous stereotype dimensions for salient social groups. Our results confirm existing stereotype models' dimensions, while uncovering a significant prevalence of dimensions that these models do not cover, such as Health, Appearance, and Deviance. The SSCM also characterizes the valence, direction, and accessibility of reported dimensions (e.g., Ability stereotypes are mostly positive, but Morality stereotypes are mostly negative; Sociability stereotypes are provided later than Ability stereotypes in a sequence of open-ended responses). Studies 2 and 3 check the robustness of these findings by: using a larger sample of social groups, varying time pressure, and diversifying analytical strategies. Study 3 also establishes the value of spontaneous stereotypes: compared to scales alone, open-ended measures improve predictions of attitudes toward social groups. Improvement in attitude prediction results partially from a more comprehensive taxonomy as well as a construct we refer to as stereotype representativeness: the prevalence of a stereotype dimension in perceivers' spontaneous beliefs about a social group. Finally, Study 4 examines how the taxonomy provides additional insight into stereotypes' influence on decision-making in socially relevant scenarios. Overall, spontaneous content broadens our understanding of stereotyping and intergroup relations.