Kyle G. Ratner, Ph.D. - US grants

People can feel stigmatized and discriminated against for a variety of reasons, including religious expression, political ideology, socioeconomic status, race, gender, ethnicity, and sexual orientation. Although research has examined the structural implications (economic, educational, healthcare, legal) of high profile judicial decisions for members of stigmatized social groups, very little work has studied the psychological consequences. Perhaps the most high profile social issue currently debated in the courts is whether marriage rights should extend to same-sex couples. This is a complex issue with heartfelt viewpoints expressed by people on both sides. The Supreme Court is currently considering the legality of same-sex marriage bans. This case promises to be a significant moment in American history regardless of the direction of the verdict. Given that many gay and lesbian individuals feel stigmatized by prohibitions against same-sex marriage, the current research is designed to examine the social psychological effects of this ruling (whichever way it turns out) on gay and lesbian individuals and a heterosexual comparison group. Drawing on social psychological theories of stigma and discrimination, a mediational model will be tested in which the court ruling may lead to changes in well-being by shifting individuals' perceptions of their stigmatized identity and subjective feelings of discrimination-related stress. The knowledge gained from this research will contribute to our understanding of the effect of historic government-level decisions on health-relevant psychological processes of Americans.

To examine these questions, 1000 participants (500 self-identified gay and lesbian individuals and 500 heterosexual comparisons) will be recruited for a longitudinal study in which they complete a research survey prior to the Supreme Court ruling on same-sex marriage, 2 months post-ruling, and 6 months post-ruling. Changes in psychological variables related to social attitudes and how participants experience their social identities will be examined, as well as the effects of these changes on psychological and physical well-being. This study will inform our understanding of the social psychological factors involved in people's responses to judicial decisions that are relevant to their standing in society. These results are likely to extend beyond this specific issue and provide a platform for understanding how other judicial decisions might have similar or different psychological consequences.

People who belong to groups, statuses, or categories that have been targets of prejudice and discrimination will experience frequent social identity threat – reminders that their social grouping or identity is viewed unfavorably by others. A common belief within social psychology is that social identity threat increases worry, hopelessness, and anger. Although these reactions all reflect negative emotions, these emotions do not motivate behavior in the same manner. For instance, when someone is feeling worry and hopelessness they might want to withdraw from the situation (flight in the classic fight/flight response distinction). However, when someone is experiencing anger they might be motivated to approach the situation (fight not flight). The current research uses methods from social psychology and neuroscience to examine how incidents of prejudice differentially influence people's emotional reactions and motivations, such as being inclined to take action or instead withdrawing. This novel framing of emotional reactions is significant because it suggests responses that may protect against prejudice and discrimination.<br/><br/>This research involves a series of studies that combine self-report and brain imaging methods to assess emotional reactions when observing prejudiced behavior by others. Across all of these studies, participants observe a person's social identity being threatened in a way that is either blatant, such as being called a racist name, or in a way that is more ambiguous, such as being criticized in a way that might or might not be driven by prejudice. One study uses brain imaging (EEG) and questionnaires to test whether perceiving a blatant form of prejudice increases a person's anger and brain activity associated with motivations to approach a situation, more so than when perceiving an ambiguous form of prejudice. Another study uses fMRI brain imaging to examine whether the proposed anger-related approach motivation linked to blatant prejudice has spillover effects for how people process rewards, such as money, since past research has noted that approach motivation increases sensitivity to rewards. A final study examines whether perceiving blatant prejudice versus ambiguous prejudice increases persistence on a task because anger increases approach motivation and approach motivation is related to persistence. This project also provides unique mentoring and professional networking opportunities specifically aimed at broadening the participation of students who are underrepresented in social and affective neuroscience and who bring important perspectives given their own elevated risk for experiencing discrimination. This research has the potential to shift current ways of understanding social identity threat and can inform efforts to boost resilience in communities targeted by prejudice and discrimination.<br/><br/>This award reflects NSF's statutory mission and has been deemed worthy of support through evaluation using the Foundation's intellectual merit and broader impacts review criteria.