Experts Matter. Find Yours.

Mental health risks spike for young LGBTQ+ men of color, new study shows

As Pride Month shines a spotlight on the progress and resilience of LGBTQ+ communities, it also serves as a reminder of the ongoing challenges — especially the toll that stigma continues to take on mental health. A new in Developmental Psychology study from the University of Delaware’s Eric Layland, assistant professor in the College of Education and Human Development, reveals just how urgent the need for tailored mental health support is — particularly for Black, Latinx and Afro-Latinx gay, bisexual and other sexual minority young men. Published during a time when national attention turns toward LGBTQ+ visibility, the study tracks the mental health trajectories of over 400 cisgender men between the ages of 18 and 29, focusing on how experiences of racism, heterosexism, or both — what Layland terms compound stigma — influence patterns of depression and anxiety. The results are stark: participants who experienced frequent racism and heterosexism across relationships and settings showed the earliest and most severe symptoms of anxiety and depression, with mental health challenges peaking during late adolescence and early adulthood. While symptoms tended to decline by age 24, these years — critical for education, identity formation and economic independence — were marked by emotional strain. "This study emphasizes how multiple sources of discrimination converge to impact the mental health of sexual minority men of color," Layland said. The research calls for early, culturally responsive mental health interventions that help young sexual minority men of color cope with stigma and build resilience. Layland’s team points to interventions that not only teach coping skills but also foster connection, celebrate cultural identity and create peer networks for support. Layland, who specializes in LGBTQ+ development and affirmative interventions, underscores the importance of systemic change as well.  “We need clinical and community resources that are adapted to address the intersecting discrimination experienced by sexual minority men of color, especially in their late teens in early twenties,” said Layland. Supported by the National Institute on Drug Abuse, the National Institute on Mental Health and UD, this study arrives at a crucial time for researchers, educators and community organizations working to create more inclusive and supportive environments. For journalists covering Pride, mental health, or intersectional equity, Layland’s work offers a powerful, data-driven look at what young LGBTQ+ people of color are facing — and how communities can act to change that story.  Journalists can reach Layland by clicking on his profile. 

10th Anniversary of the Supreme Court Legalizing Gay Marriage

The 10th anniversary of the U.S. Supreme Court’s landmark decision in Obergefell v. Hodges marks a decade since same-sex marriage became legal nationwide—a pivotal moment in the advancement of LGBTQ+ rights and civil liberties. This anniversary is newsworthy not only because of the social and legal progress it symbolizes but also due to ongoing conversations around equality, representation, and protection under the law. As the political landscape shifts and new challenges emerge, revisiting the legacy of this decision offers an opportunity to reflect on progress, examine setbacks, and spotlight the voices shaping the next chapter in LGBTQ+ advocacy. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: Personal stories from couples and families: Exploring how the decision transformed lives and created new definitions of family, love, and legal recognition. The legal legacy of Obergefell v. Hodges: Analyzing the impact on subsequent LGBTQ+ rights cases and how the precedent continues to be tested in courts. Backlash and resistance: Investigating the rise of anti-LGBTQ+ legislation and rhetoric in the decade following the ruling. Intersectionality within the LGBTQ+ rights movement: Highlighting the experiences of LGBTQ+ people of color, transgender individuals, and rural communities. The global ripple effect: Examining how the U.S. ruling influenced marriage equality movements in other countries. The future of LGBTQ+ rights: Discussing what comes next in the fight for inclusive healthcare, anti-discrimination laws, and gender identity recognition. Connect with our experts about the 10th Anniversary of the Supreme Court Legalizing Gay Marriage: Check out our experts here : www.expertfile.com

Reclaiming 'Spend': A Retirement Rebellion

June is Pride Month—a celebration of identity, resilience, and the powerful act of reclaiming. Over the years, LGBTQ+ communities have reclaimed words that once marginalized them. “Queer” used to be a slur. Now, it’s a proud badge of honor. Similarly, the Black community has transformed language once used to oppress into expressions of cultural pride and connection. So, here's a thought: What if retirees approached the word “spend” similarly? Yes, you read that right. The psychological Tug-of-War This isn't just about numbers; it’s about narratives. Most retirees have spent their entire adult lives in accumulation mode: save, earn, invest, delay gratification, rinse, and repeat. But retirement flips that formula on its head, and most people weren’t provided with a “mental user guide” for the transition. Now, instead of saving, they’re expected to spend? Without a paycheck? It triggers everything from guilt to fear to a low-grade existential crisis. The Challenge of Saving for an Extended Period Let’s get serious for a moment. The data tells a troubling story: - Canadians over 65 collectively hold $1.5 trillion in home equity (CMHC, 2023) - The average retiree spends just $33,000 per year, despite often having far more resources (StatsCan, 2022) - Nearly 70% of retirees express anxiety about running out of money—despite having significant savings (FCAC, 2022) We’re talking about seniors who could afford dinner out, a trip to Tuscany, or finally buying that electric bike—and instead, they’re clipping coupons and debating the cost of almond milk. Why?  Because spending still feels wrong. I Know a Thing or Two About Reclaiming Words As a proud member of the LGBTQ2+ community and a woman who has worked in the traditionally male-dominated world of finance, I’ve had a front-row seat to the power of language, both its ability to uplift and its tendency to wound. There were many boardrooms where I was not only the only woman but also the only gay person, and often the oldest person in the room. I didn’t just have a seat at the table; I had to earn, protect, and sometimes fight to keep it. I’ve learned that words can be weapons, but they can also be amour—if you know how to use them. Reflect on Your Boundaries Take a moment. Have you ever felt prejudged, marginalized, or dismissed? Perhaps it was due to your gender, sexuality, accent, skin colour, culture, or age. It leaves a mark. One way to preserve your dignity is by building a mental toolkit in advance. Prepare a few lines, questions, or quiet comebacks you can use when someone crosses the line—whether they intend to or not. Here are five strategies that helped me stand tall—even at five feet nothing: 1. Humour – A clever remark can defuse tension or highlight bias without confrontation. 2. Wit – A precisely timed comeback can silence a room more effectively than an argument. 3. Over-preparation – Know your stuff inside and out. Knowledge is power. 4. Grace under fire – Not everything deserves your energy. Rise above it when it matters. 5. Vulnerability – A simple “Ouch” or “Did you mean to hurt me?” can be quietly disarming—and deeply human. Let’s Talk About Microaggressions The term microaggression may sound small, but its effects are significant. These are the subtle, often unintentional slights: backhanded compliments, dismissive glances, and “jokes” that aren’t funny. They quietly chip away at your sense of belonging. Dr. Robin DiAngelo’s book White Fragility is a brilliant read on this topic. She explains how early socialization creates bias— “Good guys wear white hats. Bad guys wear black hats.” These unconscious associations become ingrained from an early age. Some people still say, “I’m not racist—I have a Black friend,” or “I’m not homophobic—my cousin is gay.” The truth? Knowing someone from a marginalized group doesn’t exempt you from unconscious bias. It might explain the behaviour, but it doesn’t excuse it. And no, there is no such thing as reverse discrimination. Discrimination operates within systems of power and history. When someone points out a biased comment or unconscious microaggression, they’re not discriminating against you—they’re holding up a mirror. That sting you feel? It’s not oppression. It’s shame—and it’s warranted. It signals that your intentions clashed with your impact. And that’s not a failure; it’s an invitation to grow. Calling it “reverse discrimination” is just a way to dodge discomfort. But real progress comes when we sit with that discomfort and ask: Why did this land the way it did? What am I missing? Because the truth is, being uncomfortable doesn’t mean you’re being attacked. It often means you’re being invited into a deeper understanding—and that’s something worth showing up for. Let’s Reclaim 'Spend' What if we flipped the script? What if spending in retirement was viewed as a badge of honour? Spending on your grandkids’ education, your bucket list adventures or even a high-end patio chair should not come with any shame. You’ve earned this. You’ve planned for this. It’s time to reclaim it. Let’s make “spend” the new “thrive.” Let’s make super-saver syndrome a thing of the past. Let the Parade Begin Imagine it: a Seniors’ Spend Parade. Golden confetti. Wheelchairs with spoilers. Luxury walkers with cupholders and chrome rims. T-shirts that say: - “Proud Spender. Zero Shame.” - “I’m not broke—I’m retired and woke.” - “My equity funds my gelato tour.” Dreams Aren’t Just for the Young What’s the point of spending decades building wealth if you never enjoy it? Reclaiming “spend” isn’t about being reckless—it’s about being intentional. So go ahead—book the trip. Upgrade the sofa. Take the wine tour. You’re not being irresponsible; you’re living the life you’ve earned. And if anyone questions it? Smile and say: “I’m reclaiming the word spend. Care to join the parade?” Sue Don’t Retire…Rewire! 8 Guilt-Free Ways to Spend in Retirement A checklist to help you spend proudly, wisely, and joyfully: ☐ Book the Trip – Travel isn’t a luxury; it’s a memory maker. ☐ Upgrade for Comfort – That recliner? That mattress? Worth every penny. ☐ Gift a Down Payment – Help your kids become homeowners. ☐ Fund a Grandchild’s Dream – Tuition, ballet, a first car—you’re building a legacy. ☐ Outsource the Chores – Pay for help so you can reclaim your time. ☐ Invest in Wellness – Healthy food, massage therapy, yoga. Health is wealth. ☐ Pursue a Passion – From pottery to piloting drones, go for it. ☐ Celebrate Milestones – Anniversaries, birthdays… or Tuesdays. Celebrate always! Want More? If this speaks to you, visit www.retirewithequity.ca and explore more: - From Saver to Spender: Navigating the Retirement Mindset - Money vs. Memories in Retirement - Fear Of Running Out (FORO) Each piece explores the emotional and psychological aspects of retirement—the parts no one talks about at your pension seminar.

Expert Perspective: Mitigating Bias in AI: Sharing the Burden of Bias When it Counts Most

Whether getting directions from Google Maps, personalized job recommendations from LinkedIn, or nudges from a bank for new products based on our data-rich profiles, we have grown accustomed to having artificial intelligence (AI) systems in our lives. But are AI systems fair? The answer to this question, in short—not completely. Further complicating the matter is the fact that today’s AI systems are far from transparent. Think about it: The uncomfortable truth is that generative AI tools like ChatGPT—based on sophisticated architectures such as deep learning or large language models—are fed vast amounts of training data which then interact in unpredictable ways. And while the principles of how these methods operate are well-understood (at least by those who created them), ChatGPT’s decisions are likened to an airplane’s black box: They are not easy to penetrate. So, how can we determine if “black box AI” is fair? Some dedicated data scientists are working around the clock to tackle this big issue. One of those data scientists is Gareth James, who also serves as the Dean of Goizueta Business School as his day job. In a recent paper titled “A Burden Shared is a Burden Halved: A Fairness-Adjusted Approach to Classification” Dean James—along with coauthors Bradley Rava, Wenguang Sun, and Xin Tong—have proposed a new framework to help ensure AI decision-making is as fair as possible in high-stakes decisions where certain individuals—for example, racial minority groups and other protected groups—may be more prone to AI bias, even without our realizing it. In other words, their new approach to fairness makes adjustments that work out better when some are getting the short shrift of AI. Gareth James became the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School in July 2022. Renowned for his visionary leadership, statistical mastery, and commitment to the future of business education, James brings vast and versatile experience to the role. His collaborative nature and data-driven scholarship offer fresh energy and focus aimed at furthering Goizueta’s mission: to prepare principled leaders to have a positive influence on business and society. Unpacking Bias in High-Stakes Scenarios Dean James and his coauthors set their sights on high-stakes decisions in their work. What counts as high stakes? Examples include hospitals’ medical diagnoses, banks’ credit-worthiness assessments, and state justice systems’ bail and sentencing decisions. On the one hand, these areas are ripe for AI-interventions, with ample data available. On the other hand, biased decision-making here has the potential to negatively impact a person’s life in a significant way. In the case of justice systems, in the United States, there’s a data-driven, decision-support tool known as COMPAS (which stands for Correctional Offender Management Profiling for Alternative Sanctions) in active use. The idea behind COMPAS is to crunch available data (including age, sex, and criminal history) to help determine a criminal-court defendant’s likelihood of committing a crime as they await trial. Supporters of COMPAS note that statistical predictions are helping courts make better decisions about bail than humans did on their own. At the same time, detractors have argued that COMPAS is better at predicting recidivism for some racial groups than for others. And since we can’t control which group we belong to, that bias needs to be corrected. It’s high time for guardrails. A Step Toward Fairer AI Decisions Enter Dean James and colleagues’ algorithm. Designed to make the outputs of AI decisions fairer, even without having to know the AI model’s inner workings, they call it “fairness-adjusted selective inference” (FASI). It works to flag specific decisions that would be better handled by a human being in order to avoid systemic bias. That is to say, if the AI cannot yield an acceptably clear (1/0 or binary) answer, a human review is recommended. To test the results for their “fairness-adjusted selective inference,” the researchers turn to both simulated and real data. For the real data, the COMPAS dataset enabled a look at predicted and actual recidivism rates for two minority groups, as seen in the chart below. In the figures above, the researchers set an “acceptable level of mistakes” – seen as the dotted line – at 0.25 (25%). They then compared “minority group 1” and “minority group 2” results before and after applying their FASI framework. Especially if you were born into “minority group 2,” which graph seems fairer to you? Professional ethicists will note there is a slight dip to overall accuracy, as seen in the green “all groups” category. And yet the treatment between the two groups is fairer. That is why the researchers titled their paper “a burden shared is a burdened halved.” Practical Applications for the Greater Social Good “To be honest, I was surprised by how well our framework worked without sacrificing much overall accuracy,” Dean James notes. By selecting cases where human beings should review a criminal history – or credit history or medical charts – AI discrimination that would have significant quality-of-life consequences can be reduced. Reducing protected groups’ burden of bias is also a matter of following the laws. For example, in the financial industry, the United States’ Equal Credit Opportunity Act (ECOA) makes it “illegal for a company to use a biased algorithm that results in credit discrimination on the basis of race, color, religion, national origin, sex, marital status, age, or because a person receives public assistance,” as the Federal Trade Commission explains on its website. If AI-powered programs fail to correct for AI bias, the company utilizing it can run into trouble with the law. In these cases, human reviews are well worth the extra effort for all stakeholders. The paper grew from Dean James’ ongoing work as a data scientist when time allows. “Many of us data scientists are worried about bias in AI and we’re trying to improve the output,” he notes. And as new versions of ChatGPT continue to roll out, “new guardrails are being added – some better than others.” “I’m optimistic about AI,” Dean James says. “And one thing that makes me optimistic is the fact that AI will learn and learn – there’s no going back. In education, we think a lot about formal training and lifelong learning. But then that learning journey has to end,” Dean James notes. “With AI, it never ends.” Gareth James is the John H. Harland Dean of Goizueta Business School. If you're looking to connect with him - simply click on his icon now to arrange an interview today.

Life and Legacy of Lily Ledbetter

The life and legacy of Lily Ledbetter stand as a powerful testament to the ongoing fight for workplace equality and women's rights. As the face behind the landmark Ledbetter v. Goodyear Tire & Rubber Co. case and the namesake of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act, her story continues to resonate in today's battles for gender pay equity. This topic is especially relevant now as conversations around economic justice, corporate responsibility, and legislative change gain momentum across the globe. Ledbetter's fight highlights the enduring struggle for fair compensation and workplace equity, which remains a vital issue for the public. Key story angles that may interest a broad audience include: The impact of the Lily Ledbetter Fair Pay Act: Exploring how this legislation has shaped workplace policies and its continuing relevance in today's legal landscape. Gender pay equity today: Analyzing the wage gap across industries and efforts to close the divide, with data on current disparities. The personal and professional costs of discrimination: Investigating how pay inequality affects families, career progression, and long-term financial security, especially for women of color. The broader fight for workplace rights: Examining the ripple effects of the Ledbetter case on other forms of discrimination, such as race, age, and disability. Economic justice as a human rights issue: Connecting Ledbetter’s legacy to current global movements pushing for equal pay, labor rights, and anti-discrimination reforms. Corporate responsibility and transparency: Assessing how companies are addressing pay equity through transparency measures, audits, and policy shifts. Connect with an expert about the Life and Legacy of Lily Ledbetter: To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com

On this day in 1981 - The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reports the first cases of what would later be known as AIDS.

On this day in 1981, the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) reported the first cases of what would later be known as Acquired Immunodeficiency Syndrome (AIDS). This event marks a crucial moment in medical history, heralding the beginning of an epidemic that would profoundly impact millions of lives globally. This topic remains newsworthy due to its lasting implications on public health, medical research, and social stigma. Understanding the evolution of the AIDS crisis provides insights into ongoing challenges in healthcare, policy, and community support. Key story angles that may engage a broad audience include: Historical Overview of the AIDS Epidemic: Tracing the timeline of the AIDS crisis from its early days to the present, highlighting key medical and social milestones. Advancements in HIV/AIDS Treatment and Research: Exploring the breakthroughs in antiretroviral therapies, the search for a cure, and the latest research developments. Public Health Policies and Responses: Analyzing the effectiveness of public health initiatives and policies in managing and preventing HIV/AIDS, including current strategies and future directions. Social and Cultural Impact: Investigating how the AIDS epidemic has influenced societal attitudes, policies towards marginalized communities, and the ongoing fight against stigma and discrimination. Global Perspective: Examining the global impact of HIV/AIDS, comparing responses and outcomes in different regions, and the role of international organizations in combating the epidemic. Personal Stories and Advocacy: Sharing personal narratives of those affected by HIV/AIDS, the role of advocacy groups, and the importance of community support in addressing the epidemic's challenges. These angles provide journalists with a range of perspectives to explore, ensuring comprehensive coverage of the historical, medical, and societal dimensions of the AIDS epidemic. Connect with an Expert about the History of AIDS in America: Dr. Adey Nyamathi Founding Dean and Distinguished Professor of Nursing · UC Irvine Petra Molnar Associate Director · Refugee Law Lab, Osgoode Hall Law School Andrea Benoit Assistant Professor (Adjunct) · Western University David J. Hardy Professor of Psychology | Psychological Science · Loyola Marymount University Valerie Earnshaw Associate Professor, Human Development and Family Sciences · University of Delaware To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Photo credit: Ehimetalor Akhere Unuabona

Freedom House 'Nations in Transit 2024' Report | Media Advisory

The annual release of the Freedom House 'Nations in Transit' report serves as a critical barometer for assessing the state of democracy, human rights, and governance across the countries of Central and Eastern Europe, the Balkans, and Eurasia. As governments and societies navigate various political, economic, and social challenges, this report provides invaluable insights into the progress and setbacks in the region's democratic development. The report's findings are pertinent to the public because they shed light on the status of fundamental freedoms, rule of law, and democratic institutions, influencing regional and global policies. Key angles for coverage could include: Democratic Erosion and Backsliding: Analysis of countries experiencing democratic decline and the factors driving it. Civil Society and Activism: Profiles of grassroots movements and civil society organizations advocating for change. Media Freedom and Disinformation: Examination of threats to press freedom and challenges posed by disinformation campaigns. Corruption and Governance: Investigations into corruption scandals and efforts to enhance transparency and accountability. Human Rights and Minorities: Coverage of human rights abuses and discrimination against marginalized communities. Geopolitical Dynamics: Discussions on the geopolitical implications of democratic trends in the region and their impact on international relations. The 'Nations in Transit 2024' report is not just a documentation of regional developments; it's a reflection of the ongoing struggle for democracy and human rights, making it a crucial resource for journalists and policymakers alike. Connect with an Expert about the 'Nations in Transit 2024' For journalists with questions or looking to cover the Freedom House 'Nations in Transit' report, here is a select list of experts. To search our full list of experts visit www.expertfile.com Muqtedar Khan Professor, Political Science and International Relations · University of Delaware Jane Landers Gertrude Conaway Vanderbilt Professor of History · Vanderbilt University Christopher Fettweis Associate Professor · Tulane University Lowell Gustafson, PhD Professor of Political Science | College of Liberal Arts and Sciences · Villanova University Heangjin Park Assistant Professor of Asian and Asian American Studies · Loyola Marymount University Photo Credit: Yannhis H

The World Cup proved to be big for sports and Qatar's business future

The 2022 FIFA World Cup was one of the world’s most-watched sporting events, but it also provided an opportunity for exponential growth for business development in the Middle East. Qatar was selected as the first country from the Middle East to host the worldwide tournament over 12 years ago, allowing plenty of time to prepare for the competition and create everlasting business relationships. Kyriaki Kaplanidou, a UF professor and researcher, published a study in 2016 for the Journal of Business Research, working alongside her fellow colleagues. The study followed the industrial progress made in Qatar after its 2010 selection and demonstrated how their networking efforts improved the Persian Gulf region business infrastructure. “The country has invested a great deal of time and money to expand its physical and human resources. They’ve had to understand how business is done in other countries, learn innovative construction techniques and develop their human capital in areas of knowledge, skill and awareness of other cultures and business practices,” Kaplanidou said. Kaplanidou and her team interviewed 24 Qatar sports organizations stakeholders, both indirectly and directly involved with the 2022 World Cup. Her research found that almost all the interviewees highlighted Qatar’s characteristics that either impede or improve their current development status. The most highlighted criteria pertained to labor cases pertaining to hazardous working conditions and displayed racial discrimination, as the United Nations put Qatar on blast for their treatment of infrastructure workers. The government decided to implement changes and with the introduction of new, stricter labor laws, Qatar is now considered one of the most worker-friendly places in the Gulf Region. Despite all the controversy surrounding the FIFA World Cup host country, fans were still excited to cheer on their team of choice, and the tournament provided Middle East countries with something to be proud of. “It will be interesting to see if the country can reposition itself in the business world and establish its presence in other industries now that it has gained new experience and knowledge through the process of preparing for this mega event,” Kaplanidou said. By Halle Burton

How Colorism Impacts Professional Achievement

Melissa J. Williams is associate professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School. She investigates what happens when social identities collide with workplace hierarchies, and the consequences of putting people in positions of power and leadership. Here she looks at something less documented: the extent to which our appearance is stereotypically Black or white. And what that means for our prospects. Rosa Parks made history on December 1, 1955, when she refused to relinquish her bus seat to a white passenger. Her simple gesture of defiance ignited a city-wide bus boycott in Montgomery, Alabama, and has gone down in the annals as a pivotal moment for the social justice movement in the United States. However, Parks was not the only African American to make a stand against racial segregation. Nor was she the first. In March of the same year in the same city, 15-year-old Claudette Colvin also refused to give up her seat to a white woman on a Montgomery bus. So why isn’t she a household name? In part, Colvin’s age was a factor. The National Association for the Advancement of Colored People and other Black civil rights groups got behind Parks, reasoning that an older woman would be better equipped to withstand the controversy. But as Colvin herself stated, there were other factors at play. There was something about Parks’ appearance that gave her more leverage, reasons Colvin explained in Philip Hoose’s award-winning book on the civil rights movement. She had the “right hair and the right look.” Not only that, but her appearance “was the kind that people associate with the middle class. She fit that profile.” Success isn’t black or white. It’s shades of…white. Colorism has long been documented in the U.S. and elsewhere. Discrimination against human beings on the basis of their facial features, hair, and skin color transcends race—it is prevalent even within groups that share the same ethnic identity, where lighter skin tones are perceived to be more valuable than dark. Research over the years has shed light on the nefarious effects of colorism or shadeism in terms of equity and access to opportunity. But a new landmark study by Associate Professor of Organization & Management Melissa Williams, and Goizueta colleagues, PhD student Tosen Nwadei and Roberto C. Goizueta Chair of Organization & Management Anand Swaminathan, looks at just how Black or white someone appears—and how this shapes the way others see their potential; as well as the kinds of professional outcomes they can expect. What Williams and her co-authors, who also include James B. Wade from George Washington University and C. Keith Harrison and Scott Bukstein of University of Central Florida, find in their studies, is that Black professionals are less likely to be promoted to leadership roles. What’s more, for Black professionals whose physical appearance is more Black-stereotypical, their chances drop from 12 percent to a mere seven percent. For white professionals, on the other hand, having a more white-stereotypical appearance is an advantage for leadership – looking more stereotypical as a white person increased their chances of holding a leadership role from 32 percent to 43 percent. Williams and colleagues ran both an archival study and a lab experiment with volunteers to discover the extent to which degrees of ethnicity in appearance influence perceptions of a person’s potential for leadership and actually predict their likelihood of success in an industry. While the science unequivocally shows that white people enjoy advantages over Black people in opportunity and outcome across the board, Williams et al. were also interested in exploring what she calls the “continuum of race:” the more nuanced racial characteristics and differences that shape how the world sees us. There’s an assumption that everyone within the same ethnic group—Black or white—will experience the same degree of bias and prejudice, or acceptance and success. And we wanted to push back on that idea to really explore how degrees of whiteness or Blackness play out in people’s minds and shape how they read you physically. -Associate Professor of Organization & Management Melissa Williams Previous research shows the link between persisting in STEM-based majors in college and how much students are perceived to look “like their race,” she says. Those who are perceived to look less typically Black tend to make more friends outside their ethnic group—a boundary-crossing behavior that can help drive careers. To test these ideas, Williams and co-authors ran two studies. First, they accessed publicly available data including photographs, professional background, and positions from one large industry within the U.S.: American college football. College football is really rich in data. You can access job titles, photos, leadership, and non-leadership roles; and you can separate individuals out into head coaches and position coaches who have overseeing roles but who are not leaders per se. Separately, Williams et al. recruited a group of volunteers to look at the images of the football coaches: a mix of Black and white head and position coaches. These volunteers were asked to rate how typical they perceived each individual’s appearance to be of European or white Americans, or of Black Americans, ascribing each person a score out of five based on features such as their skin color, hair, eyes, nose, cheeks, and lips. These scores were then regressed—or cross-referenced—with the position held by the individuals in the photos to determine the relationship between their racial stereotypicality and their leadership role. Crunching the numbers, Williams found a direct correlation between the degree of perceived whiteness or Blackness of the coaches and how likely they actually were to be successful leaders. “We do find a kind of consensus in people’s view of what it means to be Black or white straight off,” says Williams. “So we do all seem to agree on the physical attributes of race. But it gets really interesting when you regress the scores that these photos get and compare them with the actual jobs these guys hold.” What we see is that, controlling for their age, attractiveness, and professional experience, the white guys who look less stereotypically white are 32 percent likely to occupy leadership roles. This rises to 43 percent with the men who look more like a stereotypical white guy. For Black professionals, the inverse is true, she notes. The more typically Black an individual looks, the less probability there is that he occupies a leadership job. Specifically, that figure drops from 12 to seven percent. So benchmark leadership probability is not only already lower for Black individuals, but drops even further when people are deemed to look “more typically Black,” says Williams. A follow-up experiment invited volunteer football fans to compare how they saw the potential future success of two same-race college football players—one more stereotypical in appearance than the other. The results confirm what Williams et al. suspect: 70 percent of the time, participants chose the more-typical white individual over the less-typical white individual as having greater leadership potential. In other words, the more white a white person looks, the more they are seen as leadership material. These findings should translate into an imperative, says Williams; and that is to think more broadly about race and how it impacts life outcomes. Because race is not a uniform experience, she says. “Organizations might want to look beyond just ticking the box when it comes to diversity and inclusion, and give deeper thought to who they want to recruit, support and push forward in representation. For white people, paying attention to whiteness—the types of white people who enjoy advantages in leadership—can be useful in reframing certain questions. A good place to start might be for leaders to ask: do I want to support people who look like me? Because the face you choose can ultimately help disrupt, or reinforce, the stereotype.” Interested in learning more or connecting with Melissa J. Williams, associate professor of organization and management at Emory University’s Goizueta Business School?  She's available to speak about this subject - Simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.

#ExpertPerspective: Did the Covid-19 Pandemic Change Perspectives on Inequality?

Did the COVID-19 pandemic have a silver lining? According to Professor Andrea Dittmann and an interdisciplinary team of researchers, the answer is, “Yes.” In 2020, when it became clear that the COVID-19 pandemic would upend daily life, Andrea Dittmann decided the research she’d been doing could wait. Typically, Dittmann, Assistant Professor of Organization & Management, studies the sources of—and solutions to—inequality in the workplace. “The pandemic is a very distressing thing, but from a research standpoint it’s fascinating to study,” Dittmann said. “The pandemic laid bare all of the inequalities that I’ve been studying for years.” Dittmann, along with colleagues Ellen Reinhart and Hazel Rose Markus from the Department of Psychology, Stanford University; Rebecca Carey, Department of Psychology, Princeton University; Nicole Stephens, Management and Organizations, Northwestern’s Kellogg School of Management; and Hannah Birnbaum, Organizational Behavior Area, Olin Business School at Washington University in St. Louis, decided to study how experiencing personal harm as a result of the Covid-19 pandemic influenced people’s attitudes and behaviors towards equality. In their paper, “Personal Harm from the Covid-19 pandemic predicts advocacy for equality,” published in the January 2023 issue of Journal of Experimental Social Psychology, the researchers write that experiencing greater personal harm in the early stages of the pandemic was “associated with increased advocacy for equality one year later.” These findings are noteworthy. For decades, psychologists have studied Americans’ tendency to rationalize existing inequality as a consequence of individual or “internal” attributes (e.g. differences in work ethic) rather than as a product of larger structural, external, and uncontrollable factors such as bad luck, discrimination, or differences in educational opportunities. “Americans tend to explain people’s life outcomes as free from the constraints of history, other people, and social systems. Instead, life outcomes are seen as a product of individuals’ personal preferences, choices, or enduring characteristics,” they write. Lessons from Firsthand Experience While previous studies have shown that increasing a person’s exposure to inequality—for instance, working in an under-served school or participating in a poverty simulation—can increase people’s endorsement of external attributions for inequality, the COVID-19 pandemic presented the researchers with a real life opportunity to test their hypothesis: that an individual’s firsthand experience of personal harm due to an external force beyond his or her control “will be associated with an increase in their advocacy for equality over time,” they write. Firsthand exposure to inequality confronts people with information contrary to the dominant narrative; it demonstrates how forces beyond individuals’ control can shape people’s opportunities. To conduct their study, the authors recruited a balanced sample (in terms of gender and educational level) of approximately 1500 U.S. citizens between the ages of 18-70. Over the course of a year, they surveyed the participants three times—in May 2020, October 2020 and May 2021. Participants were asked whether they had experienced personal harm as a result of the pandemic (such as disruptions to sleep, poor mental health, financial difficulties, contracting the disease, or having a friend/family member die from the disease) and whether or not experiencing such harm was associated with greater endorsement of external attributions for inequality. Increased Advocacy: A Silver Lining To measure attitudinal and behavioral advocacy for equality, the study included questions about whether there should be universal healthcare, whether the government should provide stimulus checks to help people meet basic needs, and whether or not participants had done anything to combat inequality as a result of the personal harm they had experienced. Had they contacted a public official to express support for reducing social or economic inequality? Had they posted or shared content online that related to reducing social or economic inequality? Even when we ran the most conservative statistical tests, we were still seeing this meaningful relationship between experiencing personal harm and changing your attitude towards inequality and being more willing to stand up and do something about inequality. It speaks to the importance of having direct experience with something that has a disproportionate effect on your life. Dittmann doesn’t know if these attitudinal shifts will be permanent, but she believes the results of the study suggest that research interventions, like asking people to think about people they know who are affected by “large, external shocks” such as climate change or a natural disaster, “could be a way, experimentally, to get more people to see the link, to make these external attributions,” she explained. “While it’s of course awful that so many people experienced this harm due to the pandemic, if there is one good thing that came of it, people were able to shift their attitudes towards inequality. And very importantly, as someone who has done a lot of social psychological research, you don’t expect these effects to persist this long over time. They tend to be more transient. But this study suggests that these could be relatively long term effects.” Looking to know more? Then let us help with your media coverage or research. Andrea is an Assistant Professor of Organization & Management at Emory University's Goizueta Business School. She studies diversity and inequality, particularly employees' social class backgrounds, aiming to promote equity and inclusion at work. Andrea is available to speak with media - simply click on her icon now to arrange an interview today.