Black (patients') lives matter: Exploring the role of identity-safety cues in healthcare settings among Black Americans

Se Habla Español: The role of ethnic centrality in the effect of providing Spanish-language services in health clinics among Latinx Americans

The present work experimentally examines whether a Spanish-speaking healthcare provider (an identity safety cue) increases the anticipated quality of care and healthcare utilization intentions of Latinx Americans (N = 180) and whether this effect is moderated by ethnic centrality. We find that providing Spanish-language services, versus not, on a healthcare facility's webpage significantly increases both anticipated quality of care and healthcare utilization intentions-but only for Latinx Americans who perceive their ethnicity as highly central to their self-concept. Likewise, we find that anticipated quality of care mediates the effect that identity safety cues have on healthcare utilization intentions only for Latinx Americans high on ethnic centrality. These findings demonstrate that members of minoritized ethnic groups shown to be the most susceptible to experiencing concerns of discrimination (people high on ethnic centrality) are also the most likely to benefit from identity safety cues that are designed to mitigate these very concerns.

What are they in it for? Marginalised group members' perceptions of allies differ depending on the costs and rewards associated with their allyship

Advantaged group allies can incur costs or rewards as a result of their allyship. The present work investigates whether such costs and rewards affect how marginalised group members perceive these allies. Across four experiments that collectively examine marginalised group members' perceptions of individual and corporate allies in the context of allyship for women's rights, Black Lives Matter and the LGBTQI+ community, we find that allies are perceived differently as a function of the costs and rewards associated with their allyship. Allies who face costs are perceived more positively in terms of tenacity and genuine motivations, and are generally evaluated more favourably compared to allies who do not face costs and those who, instead, garner rewards for their allyship. These findings demonstrate that marginalised group members are cognisant of the costs and rewards allies may reap, and that this information can shape their judgements of allies' investment in the cause.

Examining the Context and Content of Organizational Solidarity Statements on Black Americans' Expectations of Identity Safety

Despite the increasing use of organizational solidarity statements following instances of social injustice, little-to-no research has examined whether these statements signal inclusion for minoritized groups. The present work investigates how different types of solidarity statements affect Black Americans' sense of identity safety and assesses mechanisms underlying their responses. Across three online experiments, Black Americans recruited from Prolific Academic (N = 1,668) saw solidarity statements from a fictional organization that were either written in response to a race-related event at the societal level (e.g., George Floyd's murder; Studies 1-2) or an instance of racism occurring at the organizational level (Study 3). The statements were manipulated on three dimensions: acknowledgment of systemic racism, acknowledgment of organizational racism, and inclusion of concrete actions to address racism (Study 2). Findings showed that statements which acknowledged systemic racism or included actions to address racism were more likely to increase identity safety, whereas statements acknowledging racist organizational practices were relatively less effective at promoting identity safety. Feelings of identity safety emerged via decreased perceptions that the organization was engaging in performative allyship and/or increased perceptions of procedural fairness. Collectively, findings elucidate features of organizational solidarity statements that are more (versus less) effective for promoting identity safety among Black Americans.

Pride-and-Prejudice Perspectives of Marginalization Can Advance Science and Society

Research that conceptualizes marginalization as tied to both pride and prejudice—or as simultaneously a source of strengths and stigma—is especially well positioned to address social problems in ways that can fuel progress for science and society. This review integrates insights from current research to highlight that leveraging pride-and-prejudice perspectives of marginalization can spark meaningful advancement toward mitigating social inequalities. Specifically, focusing on marginalization associated with race-ethnicity, social class, refugee status, and gender identity and sexual orientation, it highlights burgeoning research that harnesses pride-and-prejudice perspectives to advance psychological theory and application linked to (a) inclusion among marginalized groups and (b) intergroup attitudes among more dominant or privileged groups. The review concludes with a discussion of implications for future research and policy directions that can foster inclusion and facilitate positive intergroup attitudes amidst challenges tied to a racial reckoning (e.g., resource or economic scarcity, backlash to diversity and multiculturalism).