Nationwide, the student debt crisis has been worsening, exacerbated by gradual changes to higher education funding since the 1980s. Recent studies (e.g., Kurz, Li, & Vine, 2018) have demonstrated that Millennials are the most educated, most student loan-indebted, and poorest (in income and wealth) generation to date. Doran, Kraha, Marks, Ameen, and El-Ghoroury (2016) similarly demonstrated that student loan debt in graduate psychology is substantial. However, Doran and colleagues' results diverged from the extant literature in observing no between-groups demographic differences in borrowing. Thus, first, the present study sought to provide an updated view of student loan debt in graduate psychology education, and to examine changes in student loan borrowing over time. Second, we sought to expand understanding from a focus solely on cumulative debt to include financial stressors. Finally, we sought to address the discrepancies between Doran and colleagues' study and the extant literature by examining whether psychology trainees and professionals from marginalized backgrounds are disproportionately affected by student loan debt and financial stressors. Consistent with most extant literature and contrary to Doran and colleagues, Black/African American participants and participants with lower socioeconomic status reported borrowing more, though no differences were observed by sex. Participants with lower socioeconomic status, as well as students and early career psychologists (those who received their doctorates within the last 10 years), also reported greater financial distress, and greater impacts on their personal and professional lives. Finally, student loan borrowing was shown to increase over time, even adjusting for inflation. Results and implications will be discussed.

Researchers using the positive psychology positive masculinity paradigm have advanced several aspects of masculinity that, in theory, represent socialized beliefs linked to healthy personal and relational outcomes in men. However, investigators have yet to explicitly test whether positive masculinity constructs capture broader societal messages dictating positive masculine thoughts, feelings, and behaviors (i.e., male role norms). The present exploratory study created an online survey informed by literature and informal focus groups/interviews to explore how 79 potential positive masculinity attributes were perceived as both positive and socially expected of men. Using Internet and community samples of men and women (N = 1,077), descriptive statistics and paired-sample t tests identified which attributes were rated as positive and statistically expected of men more than they were expected of women. Of the 79 items, all but 3 were strongly rated as positive, 32 were expected more of men, 36 were expected more of women, and 11 were gender neutral. Many definitions of positive masculinity in the extant literature correctly represented thoughts, feelings, and behaviors viewed as positive and socially expected of men, particularly male provider and protector roles. However, some attributes identified as both positive and masculine in the present study may represent moderate expressions of traditional masculinities. Findings were also consistent with gender role stereotypes feminizing relational variables, suggesting that some interpersonal characteristics labeled as positive masculinity in previous research may not represent gendered expectations of men in the broader culture. Implications for the future measurement of positive masculine role norms are discussed.

This commentary focuses on the article "Graduate Debt in Psychology: A Quantitative Analysis" by Doran, Kraha, Marks, Ameen, and El-Ghoroury (2016), which was published in a previous issue of Teaching and Education in Professional Psychology. In this response, we discuss the importance of legitimizing the severity of the student debt problem within the field, current work from the APA/APAGS to reduce student debt, and propose a plan for addressing graduate student debt, which includes the 7 following areas: (a) transparency and guidance for undergraduate psychology students, (b) financial informed consent in graduate training, (c) ensuring financial literacy and creating a culture of safety around discussing student debt, (d) postgraduation financial resources, (e) Increasing Funding Opportunities For Clinical Training, (f) federal advocacy for student debt concerns, and (g) APA advocacy for higher wages for entry-level positions. Each area is described with examples of implementation. We conclude our commentary with a discussion of how graduate student debt may affect diversity, inclusivity, and social justice within professional psychology.

Economic precarity is a serious concern in psychology education and training and is experienced to a greater degree by the students of color and students from lower socioeconomic status (SES) backgrounds. The present study examined differences in economic precarity and likelihood of delaying life milestones in a sample of firstgeneration (n = 74) and continuing-generation (n = 249) doctoral students and graduates in psychology. Results demonstrated that first-generation students reported greater credit-related stress, personal and professional financial stressors related to graduate school, and a greater likelihood of delaying life milestones than their continuing-generation peers, after controlling for SES. In addition, credit-related stress and graduate school financial stressors were related to delaying life milestones. No significant differences between first-generation and continuing-generation students were observed in student loan borrowing, general stress, or financial distress. Findings highlight the unique economic precarity of first-generation students in professional psychology and demonstrate the importance of disentangling SES and first-generation status in this population. Public Significance StatementThis study demonstrates that first-generation students in professional psychology delay major life milestones, participation in the profession, and the economy. These patterns hold even after accounting for socioeconomic status. It is therefore critical to develop support and advocacy efforts specifically for first-generation students in the professional psychology pipeline.

This is a summary of the guidelines for working with low-income and economically marginalized (LIEM) people developed by the American Psychological Association (APA) task force and approved by the APA Council of Representatives. The task force, consisting of psychologists from a range of psychological specialties and both practice and educational settings, created guidelines in four main categories: Education and Training, Health Disparities, Treatment Considerations, and Career Concerns and Unemployment. Each category includes specific guidelines and recommended interventions. Further, the task force identified two major assumptions that cut across all of the recommendations: (1) The intersection of economic status and other identities is critical to psychological and other aspects of health, and (2) biases and stigma exacerbate the negative experiences of living with LIEM, and must be acknowledged and confronted by psychologists and trainees. Many of the guidelines and corollary interventions