The current research investigates people's perceptions of others' lay theories (or mindsets), an understudied construct that we call meta-lay theories. Six studies examine whether underrepresented students' meta-lay theories influence their sense of belonging to science, technology, engineering, and math (STEM). The studies tested whether underrepresented students who perceive their faculty as believing most students have high scientific aptitude (a universal metatheory) would report a stronger sense of belonging to STEM than those who think their faculty believe that not everyone has high scientific aptitude (a nonuniversal metatheory). Women PhD candidates in STEM fields who held universal rather than nonuniversal metatheories felt greater sense of belonging to their field, both when metatheories were measured (Study 1) and manipulated (Study 2). Undergraduates who held more universal metatheories reported a higher sense of belonging to STEM (Studies 3 and 4) and earned higher final course grades (Study 3). Experimental manipulations depicting a professor communicating the universal lay theory eliminated the difference between African American and European American students' attraction to a STEM course (Study 5) and between women and men's sense of belonging to STEM (Study 6). Mini meta-analyses indicated that the universal metatheory increases underrepresented students' sense of belonging to STEM, reduces the extent of social identity threat they experience, and reduces their perception of faculty as endorsing stereotypes. Across different underrepresented groups, types of institutions, areas of STEM, and points in the STEM pipeline, students' metaperceptions of faculty's lay theories about scientific aptitude influence their sense of belonging to STEM. (PsycINFO Database Record

Risk assessments are now implemented in correctional settings across the United States as an evidence-based strategy to inform sentencing and supervision decisions. Despite growing research examining racial bias in the predictive validity of risk assessments, few studies have investigated racial bias in the context of judicial decision-making. We investigated the interactive contributions of race and Level of Service Inventory–Revised (LSI-R) risk assessments in predicting sentence length and probation outcomes in 11,792 Black and White probationers. Results showed White probationers at low-risk levels received longer sentences relative to Black probationers classified at the same risk levels. However, there were few differences at higher risk levels and no evidence of racial bias in the predictive accuracy of LSI-R assessments for other probation outcomes. Findings highlight the need for prospective and carefully controlled investigations into whether risk assessments improve the fairness and accuracy of sentencing and other risk management decisions.

Consistent risk category placement of criminal justice clients across instruments will improve the communication of risk. Efforts coordinated by the Council of State Governments (CSG) Justice Center led to the development of a principled (i.e., a system based on a given set of procedures) method of developing risk assessment levels. An established risk assessment instrument (Level of Service Inventory–Revised [LSI-R]) was used to assess the risk-level concordance of the CSG Justice Center Five-Level system. Specifically, concordance was assessed by matching the defining characteristics of the data set with its distribution qualities and by the level/category similarity between the observed reoffending base rate and the statistical probability of reoffending. Support for the CSG Justice Center Five-Level system was found through a probation data set ( N = 24,936) having a greater proportion of offenders in the lower risk levels than a parole/community data set ( N = 36,303). The statistical probabilities of reoffending in each CSG Justice Center system risk level had greater concordance to the observed Five-Level base rates than the base rates from the LSI-R original categories. The concordance evidence for the CSG Justice Center Five-Level system demonstrates the ability of this system to place clients in appropriate risk levels.

The current study explored the associations between relationship stigma, Racial-ethnic Worldview (REW; a construct developed as a comprehensive assessment of individual's perceptions of race and ethnicity), and relationship quality among those in interracial relationships (i. e., participants indicated their race was different than the race of their partner). One type of REW (Color-blind Achieved) was especially susceptible to the negative consequences of stigma from family members. Other significant differences in relationship quality and relationship stigma were found based on REW. Most notable is that individuals who acknowledge institutional racism, have positive intergroup attitudes, and a positive ethnic identity reported better relationship quality than those who denied institutional racism and/or had less positive attitudes toward their own ethnic group. These results demonstrate the utility of REW in contextualizing the experiences of individuals in interracial relationships as it relates to perceived stigma and relationship quality. The study offers a critical account of how individuals understanding of the racial and ethnic social context shapes relationship outcomes for those in interracial relationships in the United States.

No abstract