Dupree, C. H. (2024). Words of a Leader: The Importance of Intersectionality for Understanding Women Leaders’ Use of Dominant Language and How Others Receive It. Administrative Science Quarterly.

Abstract: Management scholars have long examined gender disparities in leaders’ communication and followers’ reactions. There is, however, a paucity of research that takes an intersectional perspective. This article takes that step, using an intersectional lens to examine women leaders’ use of dominant language and how others receive it. Leveraging advances in natural-language processing, I analyzed the stereotype content of more than 250,000 Congressional remarks (Study 1) and almost one million tweets (Study 2) by leaders. Women leaders referenced dominance more than men did (using more words like ‘‘powerful’’), violating stereotypes that depict women as submissive. However, as theory on racialized gender stereotypes suggests, this effect was unique to White leaders. Two additional studies revealed backlash to women leaders’ use of dominant language. Analyzing almost 18,000 editorials revealed the more that women leaders referenced dominance, the more they were portrayed as dominant but also cold. Effects were strongest for Black and Latina women (Study 3). Finally, an experiment using simulated social media profiles found the more that Black women (but not men) leaders referenced dominance, the more voters rated them as less likeable, a result that was unique to Black leaders (Study 4). The article demonstrates the critical importance of intersectionality for understanding gender inequality in leaders’ communication and its reception by the media and the public.

Torrez, B., Dupree, C. H., & Kraus, M. (2024). How race influences perceptions of objectivity in journalism. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 110, 104524.

Abstract: Objectivity norms can act as a source of mistrust of marginalized voices within organizations. In this paper, we study White evaluators’ perceptions of Black applicants’ objectivity and hireability in a field where objectivity is considered imperative: journalism. We predicted that Black journalists will be viewed as less objective and as having more ingroup bias regarding racial issues coverage compared to White journalists. Importantly, we expected these patterns to emerge in opposition to hiring judgments that would, overall, favor Black journalists over White journalists for roles reporting on racial issues due to perceptions of their racial expertise. Metaanalyses of three samples (N = 1725) found that White perceivers rated Black journalists as less objective and more biased, yet more racially expert and hireable, than White journalists. In follow up correlational analysis we found consistent evidence that perceptions of racial expertise positively impact hiring judgments for Black journalists even as perceptions of objectivity suppress hiring preferences. Overall, these studies illuminate the costs of racial marginalization in primarily-White workplaces, even when there are apparent hiring advantages, and demonstrate potential barriers to inclusion and accurate racial issues coverage.

Torrez, B., Hudson, S. J. T., & Dupree, C. H. (2022). Racial equity in social psychological science: A guide for scholars, institutions, and the field. Social and Personality Psychology Compass, 17(1), e12720.

Abstract: How can social psychologists ensure their scholarship does not maintain racial inequality—or better, is anti-racist? This article serves as a reference for scholars by briefly review-ing the state of racial inequality in psychological science before providing concise yet comprehensive recommendations. Challenges include (a) the field's historic role in inequality-maintenance (especially by reinforcing harmful stereotypes), (b) pervasive objectivity norms that reify Whiteness as the status quo, and (c) the inequitable allocation of resources to White scholars and White-centered scholarship.Recommendations center on (a) methodological practices during the research process (from idea generation to manuscript preparation), (b) empirical transparency from scholars during the publication process, and (c) institutional, resource-focused support from gatekeepers (e.g., editors, senior faculty) to incentivize the diversification of our science.

Dupree, C. H. (2022). Forming and managing impressions across group divides. E. Balcetis & G. Moskowitz (Eds.). The handbook of impression formation: A social psychological approach. Routledge.

Abstract: Decades of social cognitive research examines impression formation—how people (perceivers) form impressions of others and the implications for their attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors. Related research examines impression management—how people (actors) attempt to manage others’ impressions and the implications for others’ attitudes, thoughts, and behaviors. However, this work has evolved largely separately from research on group dynamics, namely, stereotyping. Interacting with different racial groups is a requisite part of an increasingly diverse society, and integrating impression formation, impression management, and stereotyping research can only make for a richer, more holistic understanding of these phenomena. This chapter reviews the state of research on impression formation and impression management, briefly summarizing the foundational work before describing new and upcoming research on impression formation and impression management across racial group divides. As evidenced herein, impression formation and impression management research can be improved by examining these phenomena in diverse group contexts, allowing for scholarship that is more inclusive of and applicable to the general population.

Torrez, B., Dupree, C. H., & Kraus, M. (2022). Examining the racialized consequences of objectivity in management scholarship. In E. King, Q. Robertson, & M. Hebl (Eds.), Research on Social Issues in Management (V. 3): The Future of Diversity & Inclusion.

Abstract: Black, Latinx, and Indigenous scholars remain severely underrepresented in the academyof management, as does racial scholarship. In this chapter, we will discuss one factor that contributes to the continued marginalization of historically underrepresented scholars of color: the scientific method’s commitment to traditional notions of objectivity. We argue that objectivity—defined as practices and policies rooted in the heightened value placed on research methodology that is ostensibly free from bias—is central to the founding of primarily White scholarship in management and remains central to knowledge production within the field. We contend that racial scholarship is perceived as less aligned with these traditional standards of objectivity. Moreover, the insistence on objectivity in its current form advantages White scholars and their perspectives on race relations while simultaneously marginalizing underrepresented racial minorities as they attempt to integrate their own lived experiences with the methods and practices of racial scholarship. Ultimately, objectivity norms exist in every evaluative sphere of academia and, without careful attention to the downstream consequences, they can reproduce the exact kinds of racial inequality scholars seek to remedy.

Davis, M., Dupree, C. H., & Meltzer, C. (2022). Diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts are organizational change management efforts. Journal of the American College of Radiology, 19(1), 181–183.

Introduction: The year 2020 was an awakening into the racial disparities that exist across the United States and within health care. Global protests after the murder of George Floyd were a poignant recognition of the disproportionate—and often deadly—burden for those who identify as Black, Indigenous, and People of Color (BIPOC). Systemic inequalities within our health system are well documented. From birth to death, BIPOC Americans experience poorer health outcomes than White Americans. For example, Black women have lower screening mammography rates than White women, which contributes to higher mortality rates due to higher-grade malignancies and later-stage diagnoses. Research reveals racial gaps among patients and providers…

Dupree, C. H. (2021). Black and Latinx conservatives upshift competence relative to liberals in mostly-White settings. Nature Human Behavior, 5, 1652–1662.

Abstract: Racial minorities vary in their sociopolitical views—as figures like Barack Obama and Ted Cruz often demonstrate. I examine implications for interracial behavior, proposing that Black and Latinx conservatives—specifically, those more supportive of hierarchy—upshift competence relative to liberals in mostly-White settings, distancing themselves from stereotypes. Analyzing 250,000 congressional remarks and one million tweets revealed that Black and Latinx conservatives (determined by voting behavior) referenced high power and ability more than liberals. No such pattern emerged for White politicians. Meta-analyzing four experiments further revealed that Black conservatives (determined by social dominance orientation) referenced high status more than liberals with a White (but not Black) partner. This was robust to controls and unique to hierarchy-based conservatism. Finally, analyzing 18,000 editorials suggested implications. The more minority conservatives referenced power in Congress, the more journalists referenced power in editorials about them. Findings highlight the diverse ideology of racial minorities—and behavioral implications.

Callaghan, B., Harouni, L., Dupree, C. H., Kraus, M. K., & Richeson, J. A. (2021). Testing the efficacy of three informational interventions for reducing misperceptions of the Black-White wealth gap. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences, 118(38), e2108875118

Abstract: Americans remain unaware of the magnitude of economic inequality in the nation and the degree to which it is patterned by race. We exposed a community sample of respondents to one of three interventions designed to promote a more realistic understanding of the Black–White wealth gap. The interventions conformed to recommendations in messaging about racial inequality drawn from the social sciences yet differed in how they highlighted data-based trends in Black–White wealth inequality, a single personal narrative, or both. Data interventions were more effective than the narrative in both shifting how people talk about racial wealth inequality— eliciting less speech about personal achievement—and, critically, lowering estimates of Black–White wealth equality for at least 18 mo following baseline, which aligned more with federal estimates of the Black–White wealth gap. Findings from this study highlight how data, along with current recommendations in the social sciences, can be leveraged to promote more accurate understandings of the magnitude of racial inequality in society, laying the necessary groundwork for messaging about equity-enhancing policy.

Dupree, C. H. & Torrez, B. (2021). Hierarchy profiling: How and why a role’s hierarchy-relevance impacts racial hiring evaluations. Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, 96, 104185.

Abstract: Prior work suggests that high-status group members are favored for hierarchy-maintaining roles, while low-status group members are favored for hierarchy-attenuating ones—but the mechanisms driving this hierarchy profiling phenomenon are largely unknown. The current work examines hierarchy profiling in the domain of race, testing two potential mechanisms: role status and prototypicality. According to a role status account, hierarchy profiling occurs because hierarchy-maintaining roles are seen as higher-status than hierarchy-attenuating ones. According to a prototypicality account, evaluators see the typical hire for hierarchy-maintaining roles as more White (or less Black) and more conservative (or less liberal), driving hierarchy profiling. In three studies, White evaluators rated a White male applicant a better fit for a hierarchy-maintaining role (e.g., CEO of a hedge fund) than a hierarchy-attenuating one (e.g., CEO of a nonprofit). There was, however, no impact of a role’s perceived impact on inequality on ratings of Black male or Latino applicant fit (Studies 1–3). This effect persisted regardless of role status (Study 2), negating a role status account. A final study supported a prototypicality account. White evaluators rated the typical hire for a hierarchy-maintaining role as more White and conservative, mediating ratings of White applicant fit (Study 3). Findings reveal the mechanisms that can hold social hierarchy in place, keeping high-status group members in hierarchy-maintaining roles and low-status group members in hierarchy-attenuating ones.

Dupree, C. H. (2021). Experts are people, too: Attitudes and cognition impact experts’ progress toward racial equality. Psychological Inquiry, 32(3), 168–172.

Abstract: How do people understand racial equality in the United States? Do different understanding of equality stall progress? In the target article, Lewis (this issue) explores these questions. He challenges the assumption that everyone must agree on racial equality, for it is immensely difficult to reach consensus due to structural dynamics (e.g., racial segregation, White-oriented media) that shape people’s perceptions. One solution, Lewis argues, is to set aside hopes of reaching consensus before taking action. Instead, we can move toward an expert- driven approach, calling on a diverse group of experts—specifically, experts “on the experiences of those who have been disempowered and marginalized” (Lewis, this issue)—to work with policymakers to implement evidence-based interventions. I agree with Lewis’s conclusion: Waiting for everyone to reach consensus on the causes of, reasons for, and solutions to racial inequality is an exercise in futility. However, an expert-driven approach comes with its own set of challenges. Experts—even well-intentioned ones—are people, too. They are not immune to attitudes (e.g., bias) and cognitions (e.g., stereotypes) that maintain inequality. As psychologists, we must consider how these factors complicate an expert-driven approach toward racial equality. I draw on evidence from race, gender, and inequality scholarship to explore how attitudes and cognitions can stymie an expert-based approach, resulting in teams of experts that are not truly diverse, that do not value all of its members, and are not heard or heeded by policymakers.

Dupree, C. H. & Kraus, M. K. (2021). Psychological science is not race neutral. Perspectives on Psychological Science, 17(1), 270–275.

Abstract: In their analysis in a previous issue of Perspectives on Psychological Science, Roberts and colleagues argued that the editors, authors, and participants throughout subfields of psychological science are overwhelmingly White. In this commentary, we consider some of the drivers and consequences of this racial inequality. Drawing on race scholarship from within and outside the field, we highlight three phenomena that create and maintain racial inequality in psychology: (a) racial ignorance, (b) threats to belonging, and (c) racial-progress narratives. We close by exploring steps that journals and authors can take to reduce racial inequality in our field, ending with an appeal to consider the experience of scholars of color in race scholarship and in psychological science more broadly.

Dupree, C. H. & Boykin, C. M. (2021). Racial inequality in academia: Historical origins, modern challenges, and policy recommendations. Policy Insights from Behavioral and Brain Sciences, 8(1), 11–18.

Abstract: In an ideal world, academia serves society; it provides quality education to future leaders and informs public policy—and it does so by including a diverse array of scholars. However, research and recent protest movements show that academia is subject to race-based inequities that hamper the recruitment and retention of scholars of color, reducing scientific impact. This article provides critical systemic context for racism in academia before reviewing research on psychological, interpersonal, and structural challenges to reducing racial inequality. Policy challenges include (a) the cultivation of harmful stereotypes, (b) the education of racially ignorant future leaders, and (c) the dedication of resources to science that informs only a few, rather than many. Finally, recommendations specify critical features of hiring, retention, transparency, and incentives that can diversify academia, create a more welcoming environment to scholars of color, and maximize the potential for innovative and impactful science.

Dupree, C. H., Torrez, B., Obioha, O., & Fiske S. T. (2021). Race-status associations: Distinct effects of three novel measures among White and Black perceivers. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 120(3), 601–625.

Abstract: Race is fraught with meaning, but unequal status is central. Race–status associations (RSAs) link White Americans with high status and Black Americans with low status. RSAs could occur via observation of racially distributed jobs, perceived status-related stereotypic attributes, or simple ranking. Nine samples (N⫽ 3,933) validate 3 novel measures of White ⫽ high status/Black ⫽ low status RSAs—based on jobs, rank, and attributes. First, RSA measures showed clear factor structure, internal validity, and test–retest reliability. Second, these measures differentially corresponded to White Americans’ hierarchy- maintaining attitudes, beliefs, and preferences. Potentially based on observation, the more spontaneous Job-based RSAs predicted interracial bias, social dominance orientation, meritocracy beliefs, and hierarchy-maintaining hiring or policy preferences. Preference effects held after controlling for bias and support for the status quo. In contrast, the more deliberate Rank- and Attribute-based RSAs negatively predicted hierarchy-maintaining beliefs and policy preferences; direct inferences of racial inequality linked to preferences for undoing it. Third, Black ⫽ low status, rather than White ⫽ high status, associations largely drove these effects. Finally, Black Americans also held RSAs; Rank- or Attribute- based RSAs predicted increased perceived discrimination, reduced social dominance, and reduced meritocracy beliefs. Although individuals’ RSAs vary, only White Americans’ Job-based stratifying associations help maintain racial status hierarchies. Theory-guided evidence of race–status associations introduces powerful new assessment tools.

Dupree, C. H., & Fiske, S. T. (2019). Self-presentation in interracial settings: The competence downshift by White liberals. Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 117(3), 579-604.

Abstract: Most Whites, particularly sociopolitical liberals, now endorse racial equality. Archival and experimental research reveals a subtle but persistent ironic consequence: White liberals self-present less competence to minorities than to other Whites—that is, they patronize minorities stereotyped as lower status and less competent. In an initial archival demonstration of the competence downshift, Study 1 examined the content of White Republican and Democratic presidential candidates’ campaign speeches. Although Republican candidates did not significantly shift language based on audience racial composition, Democratic candidates used less competence-related language to minority audiences than to White audiences. Across 5 experiments (total N ⫽ 2,157), White participants responded to a Black or White hypothetical (Studies 2, 3, 4, S1) or ostensibly real (Study 5) interaction partner. Three indicators of self-presentation converged: competence- signaling of vocabulary selected for an assignment, competence-related traits selected for an introduction, and competence-related content of brief, open-ended introductions. Conservatism indicators included self-reported political affiliation (liberal-conservative), Right-Wing Authoritarianism (values-based conservatism), and Social Dominance Orientation (hierarchy-based conservatism). Internal meta-analyses revealed that liberals— but not conservatives—presented less competence to Black interaction partners than to White ones. The simple effect was small but significant across studies, and most reliable for the self-reported measure of conservatism. This possibly unintentional but ultimately patronizing competence-downshift suggests that well-intentioned liberal Whites may draw on low-status/competence stereotypes to affiliate with minorities.

Dupree, C. H., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Universal dimensions of social signals: Warmth and competence. In A. Vinciarelli, J. Burgoon, N. Magnenat-Thalmann, & M. Pantic (Eds.), Social Signal Processing (pp. 23-33). New York: Cambridge University Press.

Abstract: Humans have long developed the automatic ability to prioritize social perception. Whether traveling ancient, dusty roads thousands of years past or meandering metropolitan blocks long after midnight, people must immediately answer two critical questions in a sudden encounter with a stranger. First, one must determine if the stranger is a friend or foe (i.e., harbors good or ill intent), and second, one must ask how capable the other is of carrying out those intentions. Since ancestral times, these two questions have been crucial for the survival of humans as social animals. The ability to quickly and accurately categorize others as friend or foe would have profoundly influenced the production and perception of social signals exchanged between agents. In developing computational analyses of human behavior, researchers and technicians alike can benefit from a thorough understanding of social categorization – the automatic process by which humans perceive others as friend or foe. This chapter will describe over a decade of research emerging from social psychological laboratories, cross-cultural research, and surveys that confirm two universal dimensions of social cognition: warmth (friendliness, trustworthiness) and competence (ability, efficacy) (see Fiske, Cuddy, & Glick, 2007, for an earlier review).

Swencionis, J., Dupree, C., & Fiske, S. T. (2017). Status divides drive warmth-competence tradeoffs in impression management. Journal of Social Issues, 73, 175–191.

Abstract: The Great Recession widened social-class divides, so social interactions across gaps in workplace status and in race generally may be more salient and more fraught. Different statuses and races both carry stereotypes that targets know (meta-perceptions, how they expect to be viewed by the outgroup). In both cross- status and cross-race interactions, targets may aim to manage the impressions they create. Reviewing literature and our own recent work invokes (a) the role of the Stereotype Content Model’s two dimensions of social perception, namely warmth and competence; (b) the compensation effect, a tendency to tradeoff between them, especially downplaying one to convey the other; and (c) diverging warmth and competence concerns of people with lower and higher status and racial-group positions. Higher-status people and Whites, both stereotyped as competent but cold, seek to warm up their image. Lower-status people and Blacks, both stereotyped as warm but incompetent, seek respect for their competence. Overviews of two previously separate research programs and the background literature converge on shared findings that higher-status people, comparing down, display a competence downshift, consistent with communicating apparent warmth. Meanwhile, lower-status people, comparing up, often display less warmth, to communicate competence. Previous research and our diverse samples—online workplace scenarios, online cross-race interactions, and presidential candidates’ speeches—suggest a novel, robust interpersonal mechanism that perpetuates race, status, and social-class divides.

Fiske, S. T., Dupree, C. H., Nicolas, G., & Swencionis, J. (2016). Status, power, and intergroup relations: The personal is the societal. Current Opinion in Psychology, 11, 44–48.

Abstract: Hierarchies in the correlated forms of power (resources) and status (prestige) are constants that organize human societies. This article reviews relevant social psychological literature and identifies several converging results concerning power and status. Whether rank is chronically possessed or temporarily embodied, higher ranks create psychological distance from others, allow agency by the higher ranked, and exact deference from the lower ranked. Beliefs that status entails competence are essentially universal. Interpersonal interactions create warmth-competence compensatory tradeoffs. Along with societal structures (enduring inequality), these tradeoffs reinforce status-competence beliefs. Race, class, and gender further illustrate these dynamics. Although status systems are resilient, they can shift, and understanding those change processes is an important direction for future research, as global demographic changes disrupt existing hierarchies.

Dupree, C., Magill, M., & Apodaca, T.R. (2016). The pros and cons of drinking: A qualitative analysis of young adult motivations and expectancies. Addiction Research and Theory, 24, 40–47.

Abstract: The aim of this study was to examine young adult motivations about drinking through qualitative analysis of client–therapist dialogue in motivational interviewing (MI) sessions. Participants were a random selection of 26 young adult alcohol users involved in a large hospital-based clinical trial (N¼423). All sessions in the clinical trial were audio-recorded and transcribed. For the present study, discussions of the ‘‘Pros and Cons of Drinking’’ were extracted, coded and thematically organized using grounded theory methods. These young adult discussions centered on motives for drinking behavior (i.e. positive motives, or reasons to drink) and motives against drinking (i.e. negative motives, or reasons not to drink). The most salient themes were interpersonal, followed by physiological and intrapersonal in nature. Physiological themes were most often negative motives, or reasons not to drink, such as getting sick and experiencing hangovers. Intrapersonal themes were primarily positive motives, or reasons to drink, that often highlighted the role of alcohol in mood management. The most common drinking motives, positive or negative, were interpersonal, illuminating the important role of social group membership in young adult alcohol use. Further, interpersonal influences on alcohol use appeared to depend on rejection sensitivity, suggesting that young people could especially benefit from an emphasis on social skills training and abstinence-supportive relationships when trying to reduce alcohol use.

Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. H. (2015). Cognitive processes involved in stereotyping. In R. A. Scott & S. M. Kosslyn (Eds.), Emerging Trends in the Social and Behavioral Sciences: An Interdisciplinary, Searchable, and Linkable Resource (pp. 1–12).

Abstract: Social psychologists have studied stereotypes since the start of the twentieth century. Investigation proceeded at first descriptively, then in a process-oriented manner that evolved with the broader field into increasingly cognitive explanations, and now marrying those approaches to social neuroscience. The illustrative case is stereotype content, first studied in the 1930s, then dormant as more process-oriented topics dominated, and recently revisited in several models including the stereo- type content model reviewed here. Fundamental dimensions of social cognition, including stereotypes, depend on inferred intentions for good or ill (warmth) and ability to enact them (competence). These dimensions follow, respectively, from inferred cooperation/competition and from inferred societal status. In turn, the warmth-by-competence space predict emotional prejudices and discriminatory tendencies, as evidenced by laboratory experiments, social neuroscience, random sample surveys, and cross-cultural comparison.

Fiske, S. T., & Dupree, C. (2014). Gaining trust as well as respect in communicating to motivated audiences about science topics. Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences of the United States of America, 111, 13593–13597.

Abstract: Expertise is a prerequisite for communicator credibility, entailing the knowledge and ability to be accurate. Trust also is essential to communicator credibility. Audiences view trustworthiness as the motivation to be truthful. Identifying whom to trust follows systematic principles. People decide quickly another’s apparent intent: Who is friend or foe, on their side or not, or a cooperator or competitor. Those seemingly on their side are deemed warm (friendly, trustworthy). People then decide whether the other is competent to enact those intents. Perception of scientists, like other social perceptions, involves inferring both their apparent intent (warmth) and capability (competence). To illustrate, we polled adults online about typical American jobs, rated as American society views them, on warmth and competence dimensions, as well as relevant emotions. Ambivalently perceived high-competence but low-warmth, “envied” professions included lawyers, chief executive officers, engineers, accountants, scientists, and researchers. Being seen as competent but cold might not seem problematic until one recalls that communicator credibility requires not just status and expertise but also trustworthiness (warmth). Other research indicates the risk from being enviable. Turning to a case study of scientific communication, another online sample of adults described public attitudes toward climate scientists specifically. Although dis- trust is low, the apparent motive to gain research money is dis- trusted. The literature on climate science communicators agrees that the public trusts impartiality, not persuasive agendas. Overall, communicator credibility needs to address both expertise and trustworthiness. Scientists have earned audiences’ respect, but not necessarily their trust. Discussing, teaching, and sharing information can earn trust to show scientists’ trustworthy intentions.