Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: iii - iv Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 24, Issue 1, Page iii-iv, July 2023.
Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-07-31T01:00:01Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231188109 Issue No:Vol. 24, No. 1 (2023)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Alexandra Garr-Schultz, Gregg A. Muragishi, Therese Anne Mortejo, Sapna Cheryan Pages: 1 - 9 Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 24, Issue 1, Page 1-9, July 2023.
Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-07-31T01:00:03Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231170829 Issue No:Vol. 24, No. 1 (2023)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Anne Preston Pages: 10 - 14 Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 24, Issue 1, Page 10-14, July 2023.
Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-07-31T01:00:02Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231170832 Issue No:Vol. 24, No. 1 (2023)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Pages: 74 - 74 Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Volume 24, Issue 1, Page 74-74, July 2023.
Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-07-31T01:00:04Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231187882 Issue No:Vol. 24, No. 1 (2023)
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Anne C. Krendl, Brea L. Perry Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Ahead of Print. Substance dependence is a prevalent and urgent public health problem. In 2021, 60 million Americans reported abusing alcohol within the month prior to being surveyed, and nearly 20 million Americans reported using illegal drugs (e.g., heroin) or prescription drugs (e.g., opioids) for nonmedical reasons in the year before. Drug-involved overdose rates have been steadily increasing over the past 20 years. This increase has been primarily driven by opioid and stimulant use. Despite its prevalence, drug dependence is one of the most stigmatized health conditions. Stigma has myriad negative consequences for its targets, including limiting their access to employment and housing, disrupting interpersonal relationships, harming physical and mental health, and reducing help-seeking. However, because research on stigma toward people with substance use disorders (SUDs) is relatively sparse compared with research on stigma toward other mental illnesses, the field lacks a comprehensive understanding of the causes and consequences of SUD stigma. Moreover, it remains unclear how, if at all, these factors differ from other types of mental illness stigma. The goal of this review is to take stock of the literature on SUD stigma, providing a clear set of foundational principles and a blueprint for future research and translational activity. Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-10-26T06:28:25Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231198193
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Andre M. N. Renzaho Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Ahead of Print.
Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-10-19T08:58:05Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231198775
Please help us test our new pre-print finding feature by giving the pre-print link a rating. A 5 star rating indicates the linked pre-print has the exact same content as the published article.
Authors:Stephen J. Ceci, Shulamit Kahn, Wendy M. Williams Abstract: Psychological Science in the Public Interest, Ahead of Print. We synthesized the vast, contradictory scholarly literature on gender bias in academic science from 2000 to 2020. In the most prestigious journals and media outlets, which influence many people’s opinions about sexism, bias is frequently portrayed as an omnipresent factor limiting women’s progress in the tenure-track academy. Claims and counterclaims regarding the presence or absence of sexism span a range of evaluation contexts. Our approach relied on a combination of meta-analysis and analytic dissection. We evaluated the empirical evidence for gender bias in six key contexts in the tenure-track academy: (a) tenure-track hiring, (b) grant funding, (c) teaching ratings, (d) journal acceptances, (e) salaries, and (f) recommendation letters. We also explored the gender gap in a seventh area, journal productivity, because it can moderate bias in other contexts. We focused on these specific domains, in which sexism has most often been alleged to be pervasive, because they represent important types of evaluation, and the extensive research corpus within these domains provides sufficient quantitative data for comprehensive analysis. Contrary to the omnipresent claims of sexism in these domains appearing in top journals and the media, our findings show that tenure-track women are at parity with tenure-track men in three domains (grant funding, journal acceptances, and recommendation letters) and are advantaged over men in a fourth domain (hiring). For teaching ratings and salaries, we found evidence of bias against women; although gender gaps in salary were much smaller than often claimed, they were nevertheless concerning. Even in the four domains in which we failed to find evidence of sexism disadvantaging women, we nevertheless acknowledge that broad societal structural factors may still impede women’s advancement in academic science. Given the substantial resources directed toward reducing gender bias in academic science, it is imperative to develop a clear understanding of when and where such efforts are justified and of how resources can best be directed to mitigate sexism when and where it exists. Citation: Psychological Science in the Public Interest PubDate: 2023-04-26T01:00:01Z DOI: 10.1177/15291006231163179
Hybrid journal (It can contain Open Access articles)
