People do not always take action to promote health, engaging instead in unhealthy habits and reporting fatalism about health. One important mechanism underlying these patterns involves identity-based motivation (D. Oyserman, 2007), the process by which content of social identities influences beliefs about in-group goals and strategies. Seven studies show the effect of identity-based motivation on health. Racial-ethnic minority participants view health promotion behaviors as White middle class and unhealthy behaviors as in-group defining (Studies 1 and 2). Priming race-ethnicity (and low socioeconomic status) increases health fatalism and reduces access to health knowledge (Studies 3 and 4). Perceived efficacy of health-promoting activities is undermined when racial-ethnic minority participants who identify unhealthy behavior as in-group defining are asked to consider their similarities to (middle-class) Whites (Studies 5-7).

Social and emotional learning (SEL) has become more central to education because of demand from educators, parents, students, and business leaders alongside rigorous research showing broad, positive impacts for students and adults. However, all approaches to SEL are not equal. Systemic SEL is an approach to create equitable learning conditions that actively involve all Pre-K to Grade 12 students in learning and practicing social, emotional, and academic competencies. These conditions require aligned policies, resources, and actions at state and district levels that encourage local schools and communities to build the personal and professional capacities of adults to: implement and continuously improve evidence-based programs and practices; create an inclusive culture that fosters caring relationships and youth voice, agency, and character; and support coordinated school-family-community partnerships to enhance student development. Promoting social and emotional competencies-including the abilities to understand and manage emotions, achieve positive goals, show caring and concern for others, establish and maintain positive relationships, and make responsible decisions-are important for success at school and in life. In this article, we summarize key concepts and evidence for systemic SEL. Next, we explain interrelated Theories of Action and resources developed by the Collaborative for Academic, Social, and Emotional Learning (CASEL) to implement and continuously improve systemic SEL in schools, districts, and states. We discuss research on nested, interacting settings and processes involved in systemic SEL at proximal (classrooms, schools, families, and communities) and distal (districts, states, national, and international) ecological levels. We conclude with recommendations for future SEL research, practice, and policy.

Word count = 4996Unfair treatment 2 AbstractAmple correlational evidence exists that perceived unfair treatment is negatively related to well-being, health, and goal striving but the underlying process is unclear.We hypothesized that effects are due in part to contextual priming of prevention focus and the negative consequences of chronic prevention-focused vigilance. Indeed, reasonable responses to unfair treatment -to avoid situations in which it occurs or if this is not possible, confront it head on -fit prevention self-regulatory focus response patterns.Results from three experiments support this notion. Priming stigmatized social category membership heightened students' prevention (not promotion) focus (n = 117). Priming non-stigmatized social category membership (i.e., white) did not change prevention focus (n = 46). Priming prevention (not promotion) increased perceptions of unfair treatment (and aroused prevention-relevant fight or flight responses) in response to a negative ambiguous job situation among low and moderate income adults (n = 112). Keywords: Unfair treatment, self-regulatory focus, prevention, promotion, discrimination, African American, social class Unfair treatment 3 Unfair treatment and self-regulatory focus Your professor asks if your parents ever went to college (they didn't), your new supervisor hands you an unfavorable performance review (you are African American), leading you to wonder, 'is this fair; why is this happening to me?' In the current paper we explore situations like these and ask whether these kinds of contextual cues shift the attention of potentially stigmatized individuals to avoiding problems and the possible behavioral consequences of such shifts. We provide evidence for effects in both academic and workplace contexts.Unfair treatment threatens self-concept by communicating a lack of regard for one's social identity and basic worth (Crocker, Major, & Steele, 1998). It is psychologically damaging because it provides a sense of not mattering, and mattering, the feeling that others care about our fate and experience, is fundamental to wellbeing (Turner, Taylor, & Van Gundy, 2004). Moreover, the experience of unfair treatment is derailing and disrupts pursuit of personal goals (Link, Cullen, Frank, & Wozniak, 1987). Examples include being excluded from fair chances at school or on the job (Pavalko, Mossakowski, & Hamilton, 2003) or being the target of negative assumptions or poor service in public facilities (Neckerman, Carter, & Lee, 1999). An essential characteristic of unfair treatment is the combination of negative outcomes and ambiguity that is both attributional (e.g., were the negative outcomes due to unfair treatment or were they due to my ability?) and behavioral (e.g., what is the appropriate response even if the treatment is unfair --should I ignore it, avoid this situation in the future, or confront the situation head on now?). Unfair treatment 4Perceived unfair treatment is associated with poor physical and psychological health and unfair treatment is mor...

No abstract

No abstract