Deborah Jean Wu

Racial minorities are expected to be a majority of the U.S. population by 2044. We examined predictors of Americans’ perceptions towards this racial demographic shift (RDS), how accurately they estimate others’ perceptions, and whether an intervention corrects people’s misperceptions. In Study 1, in a nationally representative sample ( N = 1,600), most Republicans, Independents, and Democrats viewed the RDS as neutral or good. Being White, conservative, a 2020 Donald Trump voter, endorsing minimization of racism, and endorsing competitive and dangerous worldviews predicted more negative perceptions. Meanwhile, having racially diverse social networks and positive feelings for racial minorities predicted more positive perceptions. In Study 2, a preregistered Prolific experiment ( N = 819), Republicans underestimated other Republicans’ and Democrats’ perceptions of this shift. An information-based intervention corrected this, with this effect persisting 1 week later, albeit weaker. Our research suggests that emphasizing more positive ingroup perceptions of the RDS may help correct misperceptions and increase support for racial diversity.

Gender and race disparities persist among tenure-track faculty in the United States, especially in STEM, where women hold 26% of academic positions and Black and Hispanic faculty together comprise only 7%. We conducted a randomized controlled experiment with 796 tenured biology and chemistry professors employed at 183 U.S. doctoral-granting institutions to investigate their evaluation of pre-tenure faculty's research readiness for tenure and promotion in research-intensive universities. Faculty received an identical CV with only the candidate’s name varying to signal their gender and race, using a 2 Race (Black vs. White) by 2 Gender (male, female) between-subjects factorial design. Results revealed that STEM faculty evaluated female and Black candidates' research record significantly more favorably and recommended them for tenure and promotion at higher rates, compared to male and White candidates with identical CVs. Findings remained largely consistent even after controlling for faculty participants’ own gender, race, and rank. We speculate that social norms about diversity, equity, and inclusion prominent in 2020-21 when these data were collected during the COVID-19 pandemic and shortly after George Floyd’s murder may have heightened faculty’s awareness of gender and race bias, increased motivation to be fair in decision-making, and led to compensatory judgments to increase diversity in STEM careers.

Bias awareness—concern about one's propensity to express bias—has been linked togreater recognition of racial bias, but prior work has relied largely on self-reports. We testedwhether bias awareness predicts observable, real-time responses to interpersonal racism. Whiteadults (N=123) viewed videos depicting White children engaging in blatant and subtle racismtoward Black peers and then discussed each incident. We coded verbal tentativeness, nonverbalconfidence, and color-conscious and colorblind racial ideology (CBRI) language. Bias awarenesspredicted greater behavioral confidence—fewer tentative words and more nonverbal confidence.Participants responded more confidently and used greater color-conscious and less CBRIlanguage toward blatant (vs. subtle) racism. Contrary to predictions, bias awareness did notpredict responses to subtle racism, only predicting reduced CBRI language in the blatantcondition. These findings suggest that bias awareness is associated with White individuals’confidence when discussing racism, though subtle racism is likely downplayed, even amongthose higher in bias awareness.

Family discussions may be an important context for shaping White children’s developing racial attitudes, yet the majority of White parents in the U.S. report that they either de-emphasize or avoid discussions of race and racism with their White children. The current study presents a qualitative analysis of racial messages communicated during a guided discussion task designed to scaffold color-conscious conversations about vignettes depicting interpersonal racism. Participants, recruited from a Midwestern U.S. city between 2018 and 2020, included 87 self-identified White parents (91.5% women, 8.5% men; Mage = 42.57 years, SD = 5.14) and their parent-identified White children (ages 8–12; 53% girls, 47% boys; Mage = 8.95 years, SD = 1.16). Most parents were highly educated, middle-class or upper-middle-class, married, and liberal or liberal-leaning. Findings revealed that many parents and children used racial language and endorsed color-conscious messages, such as acknowledging that racial prejudice had occurred in the vignettes. However, some dyads redirected the conversation away from race or made external attributions for racist behavior rather than attributing responsibility to White perpetrators. Together, these findings suggest that structured scaffolding may support more explicit conversations about racism in White families while also highlighting variability in how parents and children interpret and discuss racist behavior.

Political leadership positions are dominated by men. Arguably the most visible of a society’s positions of power, these positions may be important symbols of women’s ability to lead. If so, levels of female political representation within a society should shape its stereotypes of women’s suitability for political leadership. This project will test this possibility by conducting a secondary analysis of a dataset that measured the stereotypes of women, men and political leaders in 44 countries covering six continents (Nsample = 23,256). Specifically, we will test whether, as a country’s representation of women in political leadership increases, there is a greater increase in the congruence of that country’s stereotypes of political leaders and women than in the congruence of that country’s stereotypes of political leaders and men. We will also conduct exploratory analyses to identity whether other socio-ecological and cultural variables correlate with cross-national heterogeneity in the content and congruence of these stereotypes. This project will shed light on the way in which macro-level variables can shape micro-level gendered leadership beliefs.

Many current issues (e.g., climate change) plausibly also affect future generations, but research suggests that people are less concerned about the well-being of future humans. Future humans are temporally, but also socially distant. We tested whether intergenerational judgment tracks more closely with temporal discounting or social discounting. In a preregistered study, N=5,801 undergraduate participants from 35 universities across 12 countries completed measures of social discounting, temporal discounting, intergenerational discounting, and intergenerational concern. Lower social and temporal discounting each predicted less intergenerational discounting and greater intergenerational concern, although, social discounting emerged as the stronger predictor. Exploratory analyses showed a social-by-temporal discounting interaction for intergenerational discounting. Participants who extend strong, temporally-invariant concern to future generations also showed less discounting across intergenerational but also social and temporal domains. The overall pattern generalized across preregistered secondary discounting metrics. These findings suggest that concern for future generations reflects both intertemporal and interpersonalvaluation.

Graduate school can be a highly uncertain and stressful time. Stressors may be exacerbated for individuals with historically marginalized social identities within the academy (e.g., female students, students from low‐income backgrounds, and people of color). We predicted that female students and students of color would report more negative program experiences, and that these identities, along with financial status, would be associated with decreased intentions to pursue an academic career. In a survey of 1798 psychology doctoral students from 155 U.S. institutions, we examined students’ finances, program experiences, mental health, and intentions to remain in academia. On average, students reported feeling underpaid. Additionally, 29% of the sample reported that their stipends did not cover basic needs and 17% lacked university‐issued health insurance. Female students and students of color also reported more negative program experiences and worse mental health outcomes in comparison to male and White students, respectively. In a logistic regression including all factors predicting future career intentions, we found that female students, students who did not have university‐issued health insurance, and those with more negative program experiences were less likely to pursue an academic career after graduation. Experiences of psychology doctoral students in U.S. institutions may mirror and amplify racial, gender, and class inequities. For the field of psychology to become more equitable, better graduate funding and support for diversity and inclusion will be essential.

Big‐Team Science (BTS) offers a powerful framework for advancing psychological research through large‐scale collaboration, yet the unique challenges of conducting in‐person BTS studies remain under‐examined. This manuscript draws on the Psychological Science Accelerator's in‐person stereotype threat study, which involved 2500+ Black undergraduate students at over 20 U.S. universities, to illustrate these challenges and solutions in action. The project focused on testing social psychological theories of stereotype threat in real‐world educational settings, a context highly relevant to social and personality psychology. We identify and analyze three central challenges in in‐person BTS: (1) balancing standardization with contextual sensitivity, (2) addressing disparities in research infrastructure, and (3) supporting coordination and sustainability at scale. While much of the PSA's work has emphasized online studies, this paper centers the logistical, ethical, and scientific issues specific to in‐person data collection. We offer concrete strategies developed during the study, including metadata documentation, flexible protocol design, adaptive assignment, and shared infrastructure, and then provide a roadmap for more inclusive and efficient future collaborations.

Democratic backsliding impacts both institutions and the psychological well-being of individuals living within them. In such contexts, individuals decide whether to support or oppose government actions that may erode democratic norms. In this longitudinal study, we examined partisan differences in subjective well-being during the early months of President Trump’s second term—a period marked by sweeping policy changes and heightened concerns about democratic decline. Across five weeks, Democrats consistently reported lower life satisfaction and happiness than Republicans. Republicans increased in well-being over time, whereas Democrats showed both linear and quadratic change, as initial decreases in well-being were followed by increases in well-being. Republicans were more supportive of the administration’s actions, while Democrats expressed greater support for actions taken against the administration. Greater support for administration actions was associated with higher well-being, whereas greater support for oppositional actions was correlated with lower well-being. These associations generally held even after controlling for political affiliation and demographics, suggesting that dissatisfaction with government actions carries psychological consequences beyond partisan identity. These findings highlight asymmetric well-being consequences during a period of democratic decline, showing that alignment with government actions may provide short-term psychological comfort, while opposition—though vital for democratic resilience—may carry psychological costs.