This week’s inclusion in neuroscience discussion focused on research by Catherine A. Cottrell and Steven L. Neuberg on Different Emotional Reactions to Different Groups. The article primarily suggested that conceptualizing prejudice as a singular attitude is actually problematic due to the wide range of emotions truly included in being prejudice towards different groups.

“…we believe that there is great value in contemplating seriously Allport’s more textured observation—that just as people may hold qualitatively distinct beliefs about different groups, they may feel qualitatively distinct emotions towards different groups.”  
-Cottrell & Neuberg (2005)

 This article evoked many different conversations through the meeting, ranging from discussions on how we collect potentially biased information as well as social changes that need to be made as a means of addressing prejudice, that way we can eliminate it in as many settings as possible.
One lab member questioned the methodology of this specific research article due to the fact that they primarily used surveys to collect data from participants. The two hundred thirty-five participants were given questionnaire packets in which they rated a set of nine groups: activist feminists, African Americans, Asian Americans, European Americans, fundamentalist Christians, gay men, Mexican Americans, Native Americans, and non-fundamentalist Christians. Groups were chosen based on their potential to pose a range of threats to the participants’ ethnic in-group which was primarily European American.

The question here is whether researchers should rely solely on surveys to answer questions that are easily skewed due to personal biases. For example, if someone knows they have a prejudice, most people may tend to be defensive about it—therefore not being truthful in the survey and skewing data. We do not suggest fully doing away with survey-based data collection, only doing away with primarily relying on survey data as opposed to a variety of different measures to ensure validity of the study and its’ results.
Aside from the methods of this study, we primarily focused our discussion on tying the results of this article into ways that we can improve social injustices caused by prejudice. The research shows that when an out-group is seen to gain in-group economic resources, damage in-group property, diminish freedoms and rights provided to in-group members, etc. are interfering with the established in-group norms and social coordination. This is where prejudice tends to come into play, when in-group members feel the need to re-establish their group’s norms onto other groups that seem to be a threat.
Awareness and education seem to be the most agreed upon methods for decreasing the levels of prejudice we see in our every-day society. Listed below are some ways that our lab members suggested doing so:

• Emphasize listening to minority groups rather than expecting them to be infinitely patient as we take our time adapting to a more socially aware society
• Discontinue allowing excuses to be made for things we all know are wrong; holding those in our own groups accountable even if it is uncomfortable
• Connect past to present situations and disrupt the pattern so that our future may produce different outcomes

The world is at our fingertips. Every day we are being made more and more aware of what is and is not acceptable to say or do because, as a society, we are trying to change for the better. The best way to do this is to address our prejudices, identify where they stem from rather than excusing them, and work to help those around us grow while also being open to hearing the experiences of other minority groups.
 

During this pride month the Brain Research Across Development Laboratory would like to uplift one of its queer research assistants: Joshua H.
 
“Being a part of the Brain Research Across Development Laboratory has been so informative, fun, and dynamic for me. I think that as a queer person I have felt more comfortable here than in any other work environment that I’ve been in. Our weekly SIG discussions about intersectionality, diversity, and inclusion have had a great impact on making me feel safe to be who I am. While not everyone in the lab is the most educated on queer topics, I have come to understand and experience their desire to learn more about my community. In addition to the weekly meetings, I have also had several conversations with our lab manager, Victoria Ward, and our lab P.I., Caitlin Hudac, about my gender expression and gender identity that have left me feeling that this was a safe, inclusive, and genuine environment in which I could be myself. I cannot speak for other queer members in our lab, but I did want to highlight the ways in which I have viewed safe spaces being intertwined within this lab.
 
In other environments that I have worked in it felt as if my job was on the line if I expressed my gender or sexuality in a way that made other people uncomfortable. By that I mean that other people's comfortability with me and how I lived my life decided my tips, how I was treated or perceived by my coworkers, and how valuable I would be viewed as a worker. It is nice to work in an environment where that is not the case and I can feel valued and respected in my gender and sexuality. Taking the time in one's lab to talk about LGBTQIA+ topics and how they might come up in one’s participants and research is an important part of recognizing all communities. Representation is more than what someone sees on screen. Representation is also about how one sees others just like them being treated and uplifted in different environments. I would also like to say that while I do appreciate how inclusive the field of psychology has gotten it has a long way to go when it comes to POC transgender women and men. They are the reason that pride exists and it doesn’t feel right to celebrate this month without recognizing their contributions and how they have been neglected by this field. Everyone deserves to feel seen and respected by this field and I am not always sure that practitioners or researchers always do the best job at this. With that being said, I do appreciate the spotlight I have been given this month for pride and I hope I expressed how deeply appreciative I am of this lab and everyone in it for their openness and empathy.”

Congratulations to our wonderful graduate student, Nicole Friedman, on passing her thesis defense today! We are so proud of you, Nicole! 

During our inclusion in neuroscience discussion in lab meeting this week, the B-RAD Lab discussed the APA’s guidelines for bias-free language. Bias-free language is essential to the advancement of science. Because psychological research often compares the prevalence of psychological variables between members of different groups – people of differing social, cultural, racial, ethnic, gender and economic backgrounds– it is important to establish standards for writing about people in an appropriate and respectful way. The APA has provided a unique section with guidelines on their website for writing about each of the following characteristics: historical context, age, disability, gender, participation in research, racial and ethic identity, sexual orientation, socioeconomic status, and intersectionality. Each intern at the B-RAD lab summarized one of these sections to present at our lab meeting.

Based on our discussion, it seems that there are a few concerns of upmost importance common across all of the characteristics mentioned:

• Use appropriate level of specificity – In relation to socioeconomic status, for example, a researcher should write something like “people whose incomes are below the federal poverty threshold” rather than “poor people”. (More specificity is usually better.)
• Avoid using potentially derogatory or pejorative terms – In relation to age, a researcher should write something like “persons over the age of 65” rather than “elderly people”.
• Use person-first language – In relation to disability, a researcher should write something like “people with intellectual disabilities” rather than “mentally challenged people”.
• Compare with care!
• Avoid using stereotypes.
• Avoid phrasing that implies people are victims or “at risk”.

​
These APA guidelines simply provide standards for the respectful and scientific discussion of unique people. The intersectionality section reminds readers that people are shaped by and identify with a vast range of social and cultural contexts; this means that people, identities, behaviors are complex and multi-faceted.

American Psychological Association. (2019). Bias-free language. American Psychological           Association. Retrieved April 14, 2022, from https://apastyle.apa.org/style-grammar-guidelines/bias-free-language.
 
 

            This week in our SIG discussion, we catered our discussion towards gender inequality. B-RAD Lab interns Caleb Simon and Madeline Kirby chose the TED talk ‘“A seat at the table” isn’t the solution for gender equity’ by Lilly Singh. Our selectors this week chose this topic for DEI because we haven’t been able to talk much about this area in our SIG discussions this semester. Lilly’s segment outlined the obstacles and challenges she faced as an Asian woman, not only in her familial life but also in her professional life. In the TED talk, Lilly touched on several points that resonated with us! One of which is that women are often handed the workloads that men don’t want to handle. As a diverse discussion group, we all agreed that many times this is how it can appear to come across in a work setting. Lilly also talked about how in her family, her efforts went unnoticed because in her culture women don’t have a voice. So, she took us on a journey as she redesigned the narrative for women in her family and all over the world.
​
             In her TED talk, Lilly stated that people often think women should be simply ‘grateful’ for the opportunities they receive. She argued that although women can be grateful for an opportunity, women can also know what positions they deserve. So where is the line between being grateful for opportunities and knowing what you deserve? In our SIG discussion, Joshua Hernandez brought up an interesting point – he stated that there shouldn’t be a line and that you can be grateful for an opportunity while also knowing what you deserve. More often than not, women experience this controversy in professional settings.

            In our discussion session, we discussed how this type of gender bias is occasionally linked to the gender biases and norms we encounter in the world. It was brought up in our discussion that a lot of times people differentiate certain gender roles to women and to men. For example, Victoria Ward shared an example of her encounter with her car troubles. She stated how when a man sees her under the hood of her car, they make it a point to offer her help insinuating that it is a “man’s job”. It is also understood that though these instances could be an innocent offer of assistance, it can be taken like she is incapable of handling it on her own. This point also furthered our discussion of how there is a norm associated with what tasks women shouldn’t handle such as: taking out trash, fixing appliances, or working on cars.

            In conclusion, the biggest take-away from this discussion is to ensure and promote the equality of all genders. Also, it is extremely important to educate ourselves on topics like this and to keep an open mind, so we don’t offend our peers. It is our job to uplift individuals like Lilly who wants to rise against the biases set by their culture and to educate as many people as we can.

When some people hear “scientist” or “neuroscientist,” they immediately think of a man. However, according to the National Science Foundation, 43% of scientists and engineers under the age of 75 are women, and if you look under the age of 29, then 56% (8 incredible, 2021). Since it is International Women’s Day and women make such a big contribution to the field, this post will highlight some of the amazing achievements women have made in neuroscience.

1. Patricia Goldman-Rakic conducted research on memory and the frontal lobe to help the scientific community learn about memory, behaviors, Parkinson’s disease, cerebral palsy, dementia, and Alzheimer’s disease (Andres Murcia, 2021). Her contributions continue to help the neuroscientific community today.
   
2. Another woman who helped the neuroscience community was Maru-Britt Moser. She won the Nobel Prize in Medicine in 2014 for her discovery with John O’Keefe and Edvard Moser. They discovered cells establish a system to position themselves in the brain (Andres Murcia, 2021). This contribution helped other scientists understand the brain and its complexities even more than they did before.
   
3. Brenda Milner pioneered the H.M. man study (Andres Murcia, 2021). This was a study about a man who had his hippocampus removed and lost his ability to form new memories. From this study, she helped discover that although people may not be consciously aware of it, they can learn new skills (Andres Murcia, 2021).
   
4. The first person to develop a map of the human brain was Cecil Vogt-Mugnier, alongside her husband, Oscar Vogt. Due to these discoveries and her research, she was the first woman nominated for the Noble Prize in Medicine (Andres Murcia, 2021).

​
These are just four of the many women who make contributions to science every day, specifically in neuroscience. To our women in science: thank you for paving the way for female success in the field and for inspiring us to pursue our largest goals. Keep up the amazing work! 
 
References:

• 8 incredible women in neurology that changed the game. ImproveMemory.org. (2021, April 21). Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://www.improvememory.org/blog-posts/8-incredible-women-in-neurology-that-changed-the-game/
• Andres Murcia, B. (2021, December 20). 7 amazing women in the field of neurology. LatinAmerican Post. Retrieved March 7, 2022, from https://latinamericanpost.com/36424-7-amazing-women-in-the-field-of-neurology

 

This week, the B-RAD research group discussed Julia Laible’s “A Loving Epistemology: What I Hold Critical in My Life, Faith, and Profession” for the Special Interest Group (SIG) topic. Julia Laible was a University of Alabama professor who was conducting research with Mexican American adolescent girls in the Rio Grande Valley in Texas. Julia was conducting this research for her dissertation and was interested in bringing light to educational practices that increased “success” for underrepresented students who experienced oppression in school. Julia was aware of her limitations, whether that was lingual or cultural, and kept a self-reflection journal to become aware of her own Eurocentric Biases. However, despite Julia’s efforts to be understanding and considerate, her entire research purpose- her definition of “success”- was racially biased. Her standards for success of these girls were based on her middle-class, Euro-American standards.  

This essay sparked a conversation in the SIG group about our implicit biases and accountability in research. We talked about how Julia Laible thought she was being representative (attempting to be understanding of their opinions, their language) but that the methodology of research needs to be thoroughly considered when analyzing cultural differences. We are all biased from our own experiences, so there will always be a challenge in understanding what other people have been through. Laible’s intent was to help an underrepresented population, but in doing so, she may have victimized the people she was researching, and may have incidentally reinforced this idea of oppression. She was using her own frame of reference instead of the frame of reference of that specific community.  

A large take-away from this conversation is that it is always important to check yourself and the research you are conducting. Whether you are accidentally using non-inclusive language (ableist language, for example), or not asking the “right” research question (how does my definition of success differ from your definition of success?), you always need to be considerate of the people you are working with. Ways to be more considerate while conducting research may include doing your due diligence in background research (especially on arbitrary/bias topics), active and reflective listening to accurately captures someone’s voice/opinion, and self-reflection/introspection.  

Laible, J. C. (2000). A loving epistemology: What I hold critical in my life, faith and profession. International Journal of Qualitative Studies in Education, 13(6), 683–692. https://doi.org/10.1080/09518390050211574 

During the first week of February, our lab had the opportunity to discuss an informational video titled “Student Creates Black medical illustrations to improve education, health care.” The main idea of this video was to highlight the work of Chidiebere Ibe who has been re-illustrating medical textbooks to include black and brown skin tones. He discussed how because his country has a majority Black population (Nigeria) it did not make sense for textbooks to only show medical conditions on white skin. This is notably important when it comes to White doctors visiting Nigeria, or other majority POC nations, but having no background knowledge of how medical issues can appear on black and brown skin tones. Our lab was very impressed by his dedication (he’s a one-man team) but found that this an issue that truthfully never should have existed, especially in 2022. Reportedly only 4.5% of pictures or illustrations in general medicine textbooks include dark skin tones. Our lab found this to be a gross portrayal of negligence by the medical community and those in charge. Chidiebere also states that he didn’t want to eliminate White illustrations from textbooks completely, only juxtapose them with other skin tones. Joshua stated that they believed that maybe there shouldn’t be White illustrations and brought up the point that if we as a society were fine with an all-White textbook why can’t we celebrate and include textbooks with only POC. However, Dr. Hudac made the counterpoint that medical professionals need to know the full range of diseases, especially skin conditions, on all skin tones which is the main problem that this video tackles. Others in our lab brought up other instance of medical neglect committed against the Black community such as the dismissal of pain from doctors against POC, especially Black women. This led into a hard but important discussion about the increased morbidity of Black women when giving birth, the increased presence of postpartum depression, and the lack of diagnoses of postpartum depression of Black women when reaching out for help. Many of these problems could be alleviated with better training of racial biases within White medical professionals. While this video did not include the topic of psychology specifically, our lab brought up the lack of representation of POC in many other textbooks and academic materials and added to the argument that whiteness is often the focus of academia. Even beyond psychology, other colleges and departments have largely white-washed aspects of curriculum and foundations that are extremely difficult to change. Our lab decided to try to make some small goals of building trust within the Tuscaloosa community, trying to learn about different cultures, and trying to sit back and listen to POC voices in any space/topic. While it’s the structural changes that are needed it is our hope that through these steps we can grow as a laboratory and individual people to make important changes later on in life.

Team, F. O. X. T. V. D. (2021, December 13). Student creates black medical illustrations to improve education, health care. FOX 2 Detroit. Retrieved February 16, 2022, from https://www.fox2detroit.com/news/black-medical-illustrations-gain-popularity-with-textbook-publishers-thanks-to-student 

To start off this new semester, our lab discussed the research paper titled Upending Racism in Psychological Science: Strategies to Change How Science is Conducted, Reported, Reviewed & Disseminated by NiCole T. Buchanan, Marisol Perez , Mitchell J. Prinstein, and Idia B. Thurston. The paper was brought to the lab by Nicole Friedman, who appreciated the authors’ focus on addressing each of the different steps that are considered when conducting and publishing scientific data. She also appreciated the papers’ commitment to an action plan and its plausible solutions to different racist tendencies within the research world. Another one of our lab members, Caleb Simon, also appreciated the papers’ commitment to physical and systemic change rather than just discussing change. Our labs P.I., Dr. Caitlin Hudac, found that she related to the article in its aims for accountability. She related it back to a personal story of having an accountability partner that aided her in accomplishing her many goals, both personal and professional.
​
The next thing that we discussed within the paper is system centered language. This type of language tries to specify the identifiable factors that one is discussing and tries to commit to talking about individuals as multi-dimensional. For instance, the article used “most prohibited” instead of “vulnerable” and “exposed to additional harms” instead of “at risk.” We concluded that this system of language was very helpful in communicating the highly complicated dynamics that are present in BIPOC participants and White researchers. Caleb brought up the papers’ important aim of distinguishing between race and ethnicity, and the papers’ reiteration of race being a socially and politically defined concept. Dr. Hudac expanded upon this point to say that race and ethnicity may not be static concepts and could be spoken about or described differently in the future. Another one of our lab interns, Skyler Hughes, spoke about the papers’ statistic that BIPOC research (whether conducted by a BIPOC scholar or on majority BIPOC participants) is 12 times less likely to be approved for publishing in journals, and when BIPOC research is approved it often must include the race or ethnicity of the population in the article title. Our lab went on to discuss the unfair standards that are present within this scenario. White majority participant research does not have to specify the race of their participants in the article title, or if a BIPOC participant majority is present in the study, some journals require researchers to include a White counterbalance group for the research to get published. Our lab was furious with these statistics and found them to be very disheartening and racist.

Our lab then went on to discuss the lack of BIPOC individuals on review boards and the impact, such as microaggressions, that this might have. We discussed the need for BIPOC individuals in every space within the scientific publishing process and the importance of having that shift in perspective. One of our labs research assistants, Joshua Hernandez, made a counter point that expecting so much from BIPOC people and consistently asking them to be the voice or eyes of Black scholars can be exhausting and not really fair. They spoke about how BIPOC scholars are more than just a commodity for diversity and might have their own desires within the field outside of expanding diversity. Dr. Hudac and Joshua raised excellent points about fair expectations for researchers and if there should be a "quota” for diversity in participants and how much that “quota” should be. Joshua pointed out that finding participants for one’s research can often be difficult, especially considering the participant's environmental obstacles that a lab is not privy to. Dr. Hudac had the counter point that if a researcher truly desired diversity within their participants they could wait to publish until that diversity was met. Caleb then mentioned that within the paper there is a statistic that states that Black scholars receive NIH funding at half the rate of White scholars. There are many racist structural obstacles present, and this must come to an end. The last thing our lab ruminated on was a point brought up by Nicole: in shifting administrations, funding consistently shifts on what the administration wants. Research funding might never be “safe” because it is often dependent on who is in office and how they want to allocate funding.

Buchanan, N. C. T., Perez, M., Prinstein, M. J., & Thurston, I. (2020). Upending racism in psychological science: Strategies to change how our science is conducted, reported, reviewed & disseminated. https://doi.org/10.31234/osf.io/6nk4x