Psychological science is at an inflection point: The COVID-19 pandemic has already begun to exacerbate inequalities that stem from our historically closed and exclusive culture. Meanwhile, reform efforts to change the future of our science are too narrow in focus to fully succeed. In this paper, we call on psychological scientists—focusing specifically on those who use quantitative methods in the United States as one context for such conversations—to begin reimagining our discipline as fundamentally open and inclusive. First, we discuss who our discipline was designed to serve and how this history produced the inequitable reward and support systems we see today. Second, we highlight how current institutional responses to address worsening inequalities are inadequate, as well as how our disciplinary perspective may both help and hinder our ability to craft effective solutions. Third, we take a hard look in the mirror at the disconnect between what we ostensibly value as a field and what we actually practice. Fourth and finally, we lead readers through a roadmap for reimagining psychological science in whatever roles and spaces they occupy, from an informal discussion group in a department to a formal strategic planning retreat at a scientific society.

Perceived responsibility for responding predicts whether people confront others' discriminatory behavior, but who is seen as and actually feels responsible for confronting prejudice? Study 1 examined whether people view status-based authority figures, stigmatized targets, or other bystanders as responsible for confronting a witnessed prejudicial remark. Results revealed that participants viewed the authority figure as most responsible for responding, and they reported feeling less personally responsible in the presence of both authorities and targets. Study 2 examined whether being in a position of authority enhances perceptions of responsibility for responding to discrimination and, in turn, facilitates confrontation. Participants who were randomly assigned to a leadership (vs. non-leader control) condition witnessed a racially insensitive remark. Leadership increased perceived responsibility, but did not significantly increase confrontation. Study 3 builds on the previous two studies by showing that leaders in actual organizations feel more responsible for confronting prejudice compared to those who are not conferred authority status. These findings extend previous studies by uncovering an important antecedent (i.e., conferred authority) of feeling responsible for addressing prejudice, which is shown to be a key factor in predicting whether bystanders confront discrimination. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed.

Two experiments examined the role of perpetrator power in witnesses' decision to confront a prejudicial remark. In Experiment 1, participants who witnessed a sexist remark by a higher-power (vs. an equal-power) perpetrator were significantly less likely to express confrontation intentions, despite finding the remark highly biased and inappropriate. In Experiment 2, participants read scenarios involving a sexist versus racist remark perpetrated by someone higher vs. lower vs. equal in power, and they reported their confrontation intentions. Perpetrator power again inhibited direct confrontation intentions, and this effect was mediated by perceptions of responsibility for intervening, perceived ability to decide how to respond, and perceived costs versus benefits of confronting. Findings were not qualified by discrimination type (racism vs. sexism) or by individual differences in participant prejudice. Consistent with power-as-approach theory, feeling powerless increased sensitivity to confrontation obstacles and thereby inhibited confrontation intentions.

Research from a number of social psychological traditions suggests that social perceivers should be more concerned with evaluating others' intentions (i.e., warmth) relative to evaluating others' ability to act on those intentions (i.e., competence). The present research examined whether warmth evaluations have cognitive primacy over competence evaluations in a direct reaction-time comparison and whether the effect is moderated by ingroup versus outgroup membership. Participants evaluated as quickly as possible whether warmth versus competence traits described photographs of racial ingroup versus outgroup members expressing neutral emotions. Responses supported the hypothesis that evaluations of warmth take precedence over evaluations of competence; participants were faster to evaluate others on warmth-related traits compared to competence-related traits. Moreover, this primacy effect was not moderated by racial group membership. The data from this research speak to the robustness of the primacy of warmth in social evaluation.

Laboratory-based research with university students demonstrates that ostracism is reflexively painful, depletes fundamental needs, and is highly resistant to variations in situational context or individual differences. Employing a representative sample of 614 US White and African American adults, we sought to (1) demonstrate the utility of using Cyberball on a broader non-college sample, and examine (2) whether attributing ostracism to racial prejudice mediates recovery. Participants in an Internet version of Cyberball were either included or ostracized by two other players (both White or both Black), and reported their level of distress before and after making attributions for treatment during the game. Overall, reflexive needs were threatened by ostracism, but more so for Blacks. Whites attributed ostracism to racism when the other players were Black. Blacks attributed ostracism to racism when the other players were White or Black. Within a few minutes, participants reported feeling less distress, but attributing ostracism to racial prejudice impeded their recovery.

Despite increased diversity efforts, stigmatized targets report frequent experiences with discrimination, particularly in its subtle, everyday forms. We argue that confrontation provides targets and nontargets a way to communicate dissatisfaction with discriminatory treatment, thereby promoting an inclusive climate. We review the Confronting Prejudiced Responses (CPR) Model (S. A. Goodwin, L. Ashburn-Nardo, & K. A. Morris, 2007, 2008), applying its principles to organizational contexts, and we offer practical suggestions for educating people about the roadblocks to confrontation and strategies for overcoming them.

Despite widespread change in gender roles, women continue to have less power than men. From the perspective of social role theory, this gender difference in power should be perceived as eroding as women gain access to male-dominated roles typically associated with power. Study 1's open-ended reports nearly unanimously projected an increase in women's power over the next 50 years, whereas responses were equally split between projecting stability or a decrease in men's power. Study 2's quantitative findings illustrated that participants perceived women as gaining in political, economic, occupational, individual, and relational power from the past into the future. In contrast, men were perceived as decreasing in relational power but maintaining levels of other forms of power over time. Despite the projections of increases in women's power, women were not projected to reach parity with men by 2050. We examine the implications of these beliefs for future social change.