Boutwell, Nedelec, Winegard, Shackelford, Beaver, Vaughn, Barnes, & Wright (2017) published an article in this journal that interprets data from the Add Health dataset as showing that only one-quarter of individuals in the United States experience discrimination. In Study 1, we attempted to replicate Boutwell et al.’s findings using a more direct measure of discrimination. Using data from the Pew Research Center, we examined a large sample of American respondents (N = 3,716) and explored the prevalence of discrimination experiences among various racial groups. Our findings stand in contrast to Boutwell et al.’s estimates, revealing that between 50% and 75% of Black, Hispanic, and Asian respondents (depending on the group and analytic approach) reported discriminatory treatment. In Study 2, we explored whether question framing affected how participants responded to Boutwell’s question about experiencing less respect and courtesy. Regardless of question framing, non-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. Further, there was an interaction of participant race and question framing such that when participants were asked about experiences of less respect or courtesy broadly, there were no differences between non-White participants and White participants, but when they were asked about experiences that were specifically race-based, non-White participants reported more experiences than White participants. The current research provides a counterweight to the claim that discrimination is not a prevalent feature of the lives of minority groups and the serious implications this claim poses for research and public policy.

The COVID-19 pandemic has extensively changed the state of psychological science from what research questions psychologists can ask to which methodologies psychologists can use to investigate them. In this article, we offer a perspective on how to optimize new research in the pandemic’s wake. Because this pandemic is inherently a social phenomenon—an event that hinges on human-to-human contact—we focus on socially relevant subfields of psychology. We highlight specific psychological phenomena that have likely shifted as a result of the pandemic and discuss theoretical, methodological, and practical considerations of conducting research on these phenomena. After this discussion, we evaluate metascientific issues that have been amplified by the pandemic. We aim to demonstrate how theoretically grounded views on the COVID-19 pandemic can help make psychological science stronger—not weaker—in its wake.

Two well documented but still neglected blind spots of often‐used study designs limit a researcher's ability to make inferences about psychological phenomenon. First, typical designs focus on effects of conditions at the group level and are not able to assess the extent to which effects characterize each participant in the study. This blind spot can lead to erroneous (or incomplete) conclusions about the effects of manipulations both for a given participant and at the group level. Second, commonly used research designs often use a limited sample of stimuli, constraining conclusions to the particular stimuli. This blind spot can lead to non‐replication when different stimuli are used. We propose that the Highly‐Repeated Within‐Person (HRWP) approach helps mitigate these limitations. Using a study on the effects of anti‐smoking messages, we illustrate how the HRWP approach helps alert researchers when the conclusions at the group level may not apply to all (or any) participant, quantifies the heterogeneity of effects of manipulations across people, and increases confidence regarding the generalizability of the effects. We discuss how the HRWP approach may help conceptualize issues of replicability in a new light.

No abstract

No abstract