Previous researchers have noted the domination of Western, Educated, Industrialized, Rich, and Democratic (WEIRD) samples in fields like psychology. In this study we asked: how WEIRD and androcentric is contemporary sex research? We focused on two historically underrepresented groups in research, namely non-WEIRD and women/gender non-conforming samples. We analyzed 2,223 articles drawn from five leading journals in scientific sexuality research (

In the wake of the 2016 election, which surprised pundits and voters on both the left and the right, there has been renewed interest in understanding what predicts American voters’ choices. In this article, we investigate the roles of personality and issue importance in how people voted in the 2016 U.S. election. In this longitudinal study of 403 MTurk workers who voted in the election, we assessed the relations between personality (openness, social dominance orientation, and national identity importance) and issue importance (group rights and social justice, economic rights, and individual and national rights), and voting for Clinton or Trump. Our results indicate that both individual differences and issue importance as measured in July 2016 predicted votes in November. We also found that the links between personality and voting were mediated by issue importance. Implications for political psychology and the study of personality, campaign issues, and voting behavior are discussed.

In two studies, we examine how different processes might underlie the political mobilization of individuals with marginalized versus privileged identities for leftwing activism (LWA) versus right-wing activism (RWA). In the first study, with a sample of 244 midlife women, we tested the hypotheses that endorsement of system justification beliefs and social identities were direct predictors of political activism, and that system justification beliefs moderated the mobilization of social identities for activism on both the left and the right. We found that system justification predicted RWA only among those who felt close to privileged groups; the parallel reverse effect did not hold for LWA, though rejection of system-justifying beliefs was an important direct predictor. In Study 2, we replicated many of these findings with a sample of 113 college students. In addition, we tested and confirmed the hypothesis that LWA is predicted by openness to experience and is unrelated to RWA, but not that openness plays a stronger role among those with marginalized identities. These two studies together support our overall hypothesis that different personality processes are involved with

In two studies, we investigated how intersecting social categories shape views of immigrants in the United States. In Study 1, we analyzed 310 attributes generated by 92 participants for the category of immigrant and 30 additional immigrant groups with intersecting social categories (e.g. “undocumented immigrant”) reflecting various levels of social status. Using the Meaning Extraction Method (MEM) and factor analysis to examine shared meanings, we identified five factors; further comparative analyses of immigrant groups focused on the first two factors (Vulnerable vs. Hardworking, Drain vs. Asset). The importance of legal status for judgments on these two factors was evident in comparisons of the generic immigrant with four specific legal intersections. An examination of all 31 groups of immigrants showed that higher status groups were perceived as Hardworking (less Vulnerable) and high national Assets (low Drain), while lower status groups varied in Vulnerability perceptions but were generally thought to be Drains on the nation rather than Assets. In Study 2, 270 participants evaluated intersectional immigrant social categories that differed in combinations of higher status (privileged) and lower status (marginalized) social group memberships, using scales based on the terms identified by the factors in Study 1. Participants rated immigrant groups with two privileged statuses as less vulnerable and more likely to be an asset to the nation than immigrant groups with two marginalized or mixed statuses. The utility of a bottom-up intersectional approach to assess stereotype content of immigrant groups is discussed.

We examined pathways to activism, focusing on the narratives of women's rights activists who grew up in different places and times, using interview transcripts from the Global Feminisms Project archive. The findings reveal that experiencing a socially or personally disruptive event (e.g., a war or loss of a daughter due to domestic violence, respectively) facilitated activism at different stages of life in unique ways; and there were specific catalysts for activism for each stage. Those who grew up under oppressive regimes thought activism was the most "natural" response to what was going on sociopolitically; for them, feelings of freedom and strength were the catalyst. Those who experienced a disruptive event in their adolescence viewed their activism as intertwined with their personal identity; for them, love, support and togetherness were the catalyst. Finally, those who experienced disruption in their adulthood viewed their activism not as identity, but simply as action. They made sense of these actions by tracing the continuity in their lives; and for them, small political acts and accomplishments were the catalyst. The relationship between politicized identity and personal identity, as well as the bidirectional relationship between activist involvement and politicized identity is discussed in light of these findings.