Background
This observational study, paired with National Health Service (NHS) workforce population data, examined gender differences in surgical workforce members’ experiences with sexual misconduct (sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape) among colleagues in the past 5 years, and their views of the adequacy of accountable organizations in dealing with this issue.

Methods
This was a survey of UK surgical workforce members, recruited via surgical organizations.

Results
Some 1704 individuals participated, with 1434 (51.5 per cent women) eligible for primary unweighted analyses. Weighted analyses, grounded in NHS England surgical workforce population data, used 756 NHS England participants. Weighted and unweighted analyses showed that, compared with men, women were significantly more likely to report witnessing, and be a target of, sexual misconduct. Among women, 63.3 per cent reported being the target of sexual harassment versus 23.7 per cent of men (89.5 per cent witnessing versus 81.0 per cent of men). Additionally, 29.9 per cent of women had been sexually assaulted versus 6.9 per cent of men (35.9 per cent witnessing versus 17.1 per cent of men), with 10.9 per cent of women experiencing forced physical contact for career opportunities (a form of sexual assault) versus 0.7 per cent of men. Being raped by a colleague was reported by 0.8 per cent of women versus 0.1 per cent of men (1.9 per cent witnessing versus 0.6 per cent of men). Evaluations of organizations’ adequacy in handling sexual misconduct were significantly lower among women than men, ranging from a low of 15.1 per cent for the General Medical Council to a high of 31.1 per cent for the Royal Colleges (men’s evaluations: 48.6 and 60.2 per cent respectively).

Conclusion
Sexual misconduct in the past 5 years has been experienced widely, with women affected disproportionately. Accountable organizations are not regarded as dealing adequately with this issue.

Around the world, protests tied to the Black Lives Matter movement are highlighting myriad forms of unjust treatment that racial and ethnic minorities face, and prompting countries to reckon with these injustices. When considering racial/ethnic minorities’ motivation to engage in these collective actions (alongside allies), it is certainly spurred in part by witnessing and experiencing such unjust treatment. Yet because this intergroup mistreatment commands strong attention (rightly so), less attention has been given to another potential force behind minorities’ collective action motivations – the (positive) treatment coming from members of their own racial/ethnic group. Bridging theory on intragroup relations and collective action, in four studies we demonstrate that when racial/ethnic minorities are shown appreciation for the ideas and insights they bring to their group – for instance, when fellow members seek them out for their ideas during conversation; expressions of distinctive treatment – it positively affects their sense of value to the group as a whole, and, in turn, their motivation to engage in collective action. Moreover, we demonstrate how these processes feed into other established explanations for collective action, outlined in the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA; e.g. perceived injustice). We also show that even a single expression of distinctive treatment from a few unknown ingroup members can have positive effects, especially when those members have high standing within the group. Overall, this illustrates the power of the ingroup – how taking opportunities to seek out a fellow member’s ideas and perspectives can be a potent force for promoting collective action.

Organizations and other groups often recognize the importance of members treating each other in a fair (dignified, unbiased) manner. This type of treatment is key to fostering individuals’ sense of belonging in the group. However, while a sense of belonging is important, individuals also need to be shown that they have some distinct value to the group – enabling them to not only “fit in” but also “stand out.” Building from research on fair treatment, we explicate another form, distinctive treatment, whereby others show interest and appreciation for an individual’s more distinguishing, group-relevant qualities. In six studies using multiple methods (e.g. experimental, longitudinal) and in multiple types of groups (work organizations, student communities, racial/ethnic minority groups), we show that fair and distinctive treatment play fundamentally different roles – shaping individuals’ perceived belonging versus intragroup standing, respectively – and with downstream benefits for mental health (less anxiety, fewer depressive symptoms). Overall, this illustrates that promoting fair treatment in groups is important, but not sufficient. Experiencing distinctive treatment is also key. Each type of treatment provides unique social evaluative information that fosters a healthy sense of self. This research further indicates that distinctive treatment may be a vital yet overlooked element to promoting diversity and inclusion in groups, as it provides a path for recognizing and appreciating, and thus encouraging, a diversity of ideas, insights, knowledge and skills that individuals bring to the group.

Leaders exist in myriad types of groups. Yet in many of them – including in organizational, political, and educational domains – leadership roles are disproportionately occupied by individuals of certain social categories (e.g. men, white individuals). Speaking to this imbalance in representation, there is a wealth of theory and research indicating that gender and race are key to understanding: (a) who tends to get placed in leadership roles, and (b) what an individual’s experience will be like while in that role, or on the path to it. In part, this is because there are commonly held stereotypes that make certain individuals – often those of socially dominant racial and gender groups – seem better suited for leadership. By comparison, individuals of other genders and races are often perceived and evaluated as less suitable, and treated as such (e.g. deprived of opportunities to become leaders or develop leadership skills). These stereotypes can also elicit disparate internal states (e.g. stereotype threat, internalized negative self-perceptions) that affect individuals’ likelihood of pursuing or obtaining such roles (e.g. by affecting their motivation, performance). In this way, leadership dynamics are intimately connected to the study of gender and race.

Overall, these dynamics involve several psychological processes. This includes myriad forms of gender and racial bias – discrimination in evaluations, pay, hiring, and promotions, and in access to role models, mentorship, and support; backlash effects; queen bee effects (self-group distancing); glass cliff effects; motherhood penalties; fatherhood bonuses. It also involves multiple lines of theorizing – role congruity theory; lack of fit; masculine defaults and ambient belonging; modern sexism; aversive racism; social identity threat, and others.

Looking ahead, there are several critical directions for advancing research on gender, race, and leadership. This includes examining leadership processes from a more precise, intersectional lens – rather than studying the implications of one’s gender or race in isolation (e.g. by integrating work on intersectionality theory, gendered races, and intersectional invisibility). Future study of these processes will also need to consider other relevant social identities (e.g. reflecting class, religion, age, sexuality, ability and neurodiversity, nationality and immigration status), along with a more thorough consideration of gender – going beyond the study of (cisgender) men and women to consider how transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals are perceived and treated in leadership roles, or on the path to such roles. Additionally, and ultimately, it will be critical to develop effective strategies for addressing the underrepresentation of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other social groups in leadership. In part this will mean carefully evaluating strategies now being employed (e.g. organizational diversity messages, quotas and affirmative action, mentorship programs) – including those that may be largely ineffective, if not causing harm (e.g. implicit bias training, campaigning for women to “lean in”). Addressing the lack of diversity in leadership will be a crucial step towards tackling broader issues of social inequity.

In efforts to promote equality and combat potential gender bias, traditionally male-occupied professions are investing resources into hiring more women. Looking forward, if women do become well-represented in a profession, does this mean equality has been achieved? Are issues of bias resolved? Two studies including a randomized double-blind experiment demonstrate that biases can persist even when women become well-represented (evinced in veterinary medicine). Evidence included managers evaluating an employee randomly assigned a male (vs. female) name as more competent, and advising a $3,475.00 higher salary, equating to an 8% pay gap. Importantly, those who thought bias was not happening in their field were the key drivers of it – a ‘high risk’ group (including men and women) that, as shown, can be readily identified/assessed. Thus, as other professions make gains in women’s representation it will be vital to recognize that discrimination can persist – perpetuated by those who think it not happening.

Research on social identity and leadership rarely examines leadership processes from the perspective of leaders themselves. Three studies (experimental, longitudinal, cross-sectional) help fill this gap. Integrating social identity principles with a reflected appraisals perspective, we demonstrate that as individuals come to see themselves as (informal) leaders in a group, it positively affects their own sense of fit to the group prototype. Their own perceived prototypicality, in turn, yields a strengthened attachment to the group (identification). Importantly, we demonstrate this in racial and ethnic minority groups – an understudied context, yet where individuals develop meaningful conceptions of leadership and identification, with implications for their health and commitment to collective action. Altogether, this provides insights on social identity processes, and minority group leadership.

Higher Education (HE) is seen as a tool to create job opportunities and enhance individuals' quality of life. Research demonstrates that students' expectations of career success in HE are an important predictor of their motivation and academic attainment. However, there is a lack of clarity about how career success is defined and whether individuals perceive that their experiences (e.g. gender) may be associated with these definitions. In online written interviews with 36 university students in the United Kingdom, we examine how students define career success and how they perceive their identity (gender, socioeconomic status) experiences underpinning these definitions. We analysed three main definitional themes: (a) career success as personal development, (b) career success as individual mobility, and (c) lack of clarity about what career success is. Findings suggest that gender and socioeconomic experiences had an important role in students' understanding of career success, especially for students from disadvantaged backgrounds. Indeed, in the intersection of gender and socioeconomic status, inequalities persist: female students anticipated difficulties in terms of work-life balance and gender stereotypes that constrained their career success definitions. Moreover, family experiences were important to understand students' definitions of career success, particularly for disadvantaged socioeconomic groups. The current research sheds light on an important paradox in HE organisations: while students tend to define career success in relatively individualistic ways, such as individual mobility, financial success, or personal development, it was clear that their social identities (e.g. gender, socioeconomic status) and related experiences played an important role in creating definitions of career success. This further implies that when universities encourage a perception of career success as individual mobility, for example, having better job opportunities, or by espousing the belief that higher education and/or professional sectors are truly meritocratic-this will not always align with, and may create tension for, students from disadvantaged groups.

AbstractSense of belonging is a fundamental human motivation and, in higher education settings, has been associated with students’ motivation and academic outcomes. However, less is known about the nuances of how students define belonging within a university context, and how their gendered and socio-economic identity-based experiences inform these definitions. Using a qualitative approach, we interviewed 36 UK university students to better understand (1) students’ definitions of belonging to university, and (2) how these conceptualizations are shaped by their experiences in terms of their gender, their socioeconomic status, and the intersection of these two identities. Interviews showed that students defined belonging in terms of social belonging. These definitions were shaped by their (a) cultural capital about university, (b) socioeconomic or gender identity experiences and (c) perceived similarity with other students. Indeed, despite the fact that students’ definitions of belonging were associated with how they have experienced belonging to university, identity-based experiences were mostly mentioned when they perceived they did not belong, which was framed as a “sense of anti-belonging”. Otherwise, students defined belonging as (a) being authentic, considering—for example—gender identity-based experiences of acceptance in university, or (b) sharing similar experiences with others, considering the importance of perceiving similarity with other students to feel they belong and, in some cases, being necessary to learn about university culture to perceive similarity with others. Theoretical and practical implications are discussed in terms of how belonging conceptualisations are bound up in identity and context, opening questions about the consequences of inclusion and diversity policies in higher education.

Background
This observational study, paired with National Health Service (NHS) workforce population data, examined gender differences in surgical workforce members’ experiences with sexual misconduct (sexual harassment, sexual assault, rape) among colleagues in the past 5 years, and their views of the adequacy of accountable organizations in dealing with this issue.

Methods
This was a survey of UK surgical workforce members, recruited via surgical organizations.

Results
Some 1704 individuals participated, with 1434 (51.5 per cent women) eligible for primary unweighted analyses. Weighted analyses, grounded in NHS England surgical workforce population data, used 756 NHS England participants. Weighted and unweighted analyses showed that, compared with men, women were significantly more likely to report witnessing, and be a target of, sexual misconduct. Among women, 63.3 per cent reported being the target of sexual harassment versus 23.7 per cent of men (89.5 per cent witnessing versus 81.0 per cent of men). Additionally, 29.9 per cent of women had been sexually assaulted versus 6.9 per cent of men (35.9 per cent witnessing versus 17.1 per cent of men), with 10.9 per cent of women experiencing forced physical contact for career opportunities (a form of sexual assault) versus 0.7 per cent of men. Being raped by a colleague was reported by 0.8 per cent of women versus 0.1 per cent of men (1.9 per cent witnessing versus 0.6 per cent of men). Evaluations of organizations’ adequacy in handling sexual misconduct were significantly lower among women than men, ranging from a low of 15.1 per cent for the General Medical Council to a high of 31.1 per cent for the Royal Colleges (men’s evaluations: 48.6 and 60.2 per cent respectively).

Conclusion
Sexual misconduct in the past 5 years has been experienced widely, with women affected disproportionately. Accountable organizations are not regarded as dealing adequately with this issue.

Although stressors are common in group life, people cope better when group authorities treat them with care/concern. However, it remains unclear whether such treatment affects individuals’ physiological stress. In this experiment, individuals engaged in an interview known to increase cortisol (stress biomarker). Surrounding the interview, an ingroup supervisor treated them with standard professionalism (politeness; control), explicit care/concern (high-quality treatment), or disregard (poor-quality treatment). While those in the control condition experienced a spike in cortisol, individuals in the high-quality treatment condition did not experience this physiological stress (cortisol). Those shown poor-quality treatment also did not exhibit stress, suggesting the explicit disregard for them may have undermined the interview’s legitimacy, thereby removing social evaluative threat. Paralleling past research, self-reported stress did not reflect individuals’ physiological stress (cortisol). Overall, results suggest that to alleviate members’ physiological stress, supervisors need to be more than polite and professional – also demonstrating care/concern for them as individuals.

Professional British women of African, Asian, and Caribbean (AAC) ethnicities contend with unique challenges and experiences in the workplace. These challenges are often
due to experiences that occur at the intersection of gender and ethnic identity, thus many professional white British women (of Anglo-Saxon decent), do not face the same challenges. AAC women are more often discriminated against, excluded from informal networks, and their contributions credited to someone else. We take an intersectional theoretical approach to better understand both the disadvantaged experiences and the possible advantaged experiences that British AAC women face, based on their experiences as AAC individuals, as women and as AAC women. The study seeks to ‘give voice’ to the experiences of AAC professional women, due to the limited amount of scholarship that adequately considers their workplace experiences. We consider the ways that their identity produces qualitatively different experiences determined by the context, by the nature of interpersonal encounters or by both the context and interpersonal encounters. We conduct real-time online written interviews and utilize thematic template analysis to understand whether AAC women strategically flex identity at work. We present four major themes. These are (1) the benefits of identity flexing, (2) the role of specific stereotypes, (3) context specific opportunities, and (4) the costs of identity flexing. We draw on literature that suggests that AAC women’s identity experiences are not exclusively oppressive. We find that unique experiences, occurring at the intersection of identity facets may also yield forms of relative advantage, wherein individuals are able to adaptively leverage opportunities. Our results demonstrate that where the facets of one’s identity are more varied, there might be more chance that the particular identity will be valued in a given social context. As a result, the individual may try to assimilate with certain identity groups (through flexing), as the context directs. Nevertheless, engaging in identity flexing strategies has costs for women’s well-being, such as needing to perform increased amounts of emotional labor and heightened feelings of frustration. Overall, these costs (as well as benefits), evidence the complexities of identity flexing and the likely negative well-being implications that could ensue.

ObjectiveAmidst growing numbers of women in certain areas of medicine (eg, general practice/primary care), yet their continued under-representation in others (eg, surgical specialties), this study examines (1) whether medical professionals mistakenly infer that women are now broadly well represented, overestimating women’struerepresentation in several different areas and roles; and (2) whether this overestimation of women’s representation predicts decreased support for gender equality initiatives in the field, in conjunction with one’s own gender.DesignCross-sectional survey.SettingUK-based medical field.Participants425 UK medical consultants/general practitioners and trainees (ST/CT1+/SHO/Registrar); 47% were female.Main outcome measuresEstimates of women’s representation in different areas/roles within medicine, examined as a composite estimate and individually; and a multi-item measure of support for gender-based initiatives in medicine.ResultsMedical professionals tended to overestimate women’s true representation in several different areas of medicine (general practice, medical specialties, surgical specialties) and in various roles (consultants/general practitioners, trainees, medical school graduates). Moreover, these erroneous estimates predicted a decreased willingness to support gender-based initiatives, particularly among men in the field: composite overestimation*respondent gender interaction,B=−0.04, 95% CI −0.07 to −0.01, p=0.01. Specifically, while female respondents’ (over)estimates were unrelated to their level of support (B=0.00, 95% CI −0.02 to 0.02, p=0.92), male respondents’ tendency to overestimate the proportion of women in medicine predicted lower support for gender-based initiatives (B=−0.04, 95% CI −0.06 to −0.02, p<0.001).ConclusionsWhile some progress has been made in gender representation in the medical field, this research illustrates that there are still barriers to gender equality efforts and identifies who within the field is focally maintaining these barriers. It is those individuals (particularly men) who overestimate thetrueprogress that has been made in women’s representation who are at highest risk of undermining it.

More and more women are breaking the glass ceiling to obtain positions of power. Yet with this rise, some women experience threats to their power. Here we focus on women’s perceived threats to the stability of their power and the degree to which women feel they do not deserve their power positions, as reflected in their impostor feelings. The present research identifies key workplace characteristics that are associated with these internalized power threats with survey data collected among 185 women in high-power positions. We find that negative workplace experiences (i.e. gender discrimination, denigrating treatment, lack of cultural fit, and lack of mentoring) are associated with a greater sense of power threat, which in turn relates to adverse workplace outcomes (i.e. reduced job satisfaction and increased emotional exhaustion and opting-out intentions). With this unique sample of high-powered women, our findings help illustrate the forces that make women experience power as precarious, thereby shedding light on the disadvantages these women face. We provide suggestions on how to reduce women’s internalized power threats.

AbstractAccess to Higher Education (HE) is based on the idea that all students should have the same opportunities, and that merit and hard work, regardless of students’ backgrounds, will lead to success. However, inequalities remain despite efforts to provide equal access to HE, raising questions about the validity of such a meritocratic approach. Using qualitative analysis, we interviewed UK university students to understand students’ perceptions of meritocracy in HE, and if and how students associated these perceptions with their gender and subjective socioeconomic status identity experiences. Students’ perceptions could be described in two main ideas: (a) the perceived commitment of their universities to meritocracy, and (b) their endorsement and rejection of meritocracy as an identity enhancement strategy. Hence, both support and lack of support for meritocracy are strategies used by disadvantaged groups to navigate and cope with the lack of opportunities and socioeconomic disadvantages in HE.

Around the world, protests tied to the Black Lives Matter movement are highlighting myriad forms of unjust treatment that racial and ethnic minorities face, and prompting countries to reckon with these injustices. When considering racial/ethnic minorities’ motivation to engage in these collective actions (alongside allies), it is certainly spurred in part by witnessing and experiencing such unjust treatment. Yet because this intergroup mistreatment commands strong attention (rightly so), less attention has been given to another potential force behind minorities’ collective action motivations – the (positive) treatment coming from members of their own racial/ethnic group. Bridging theory on intragroup relations and collective action, in four studies we demonstrate that when racial/ethnic minorities are shown appreciation for the ideas and insights they bring to their group – for instance, when fellow members seek them out for their ideas during conversation; expressions of distinctive treatment – it positively affects their sense of value to the group as a whole, and, in turn, their motivation to engage in collective action. Moreover, we demonstrate how these processes feed into other established explanations for collective action, outlined in the social identity model of collective action (SIMCA; e.g. perceived injustice). We also show that even a single expression of distinctive treatment from a few unknown ingroup members can have positive effects, especially when those members have high standing within the group. Overall, this illustrates the power of the ingroup – how taking opportunities to seek out a fellow member’s ideas and perspectives can be a potent force for promoting collective action.

Organizations and other groups often recognize the importance of members treating each other in a fair (dignified, unbiased) manner. This type of treatment is key to fostering individuals’ sense of belonging in the group. However, while a sense of belonging is important, individuals also need to be shown that they have some distinct value to the group – enabling them to not only “fit in” but also “stand out.” Building from research on fair treatment, we explicate another form, distinctive treatment, whereby others show interest and appreciation for an individual’s more distinguishing, group-relevant qualities. In six studies using multiple methods (e.g. experimental, longitudinal) and in multiple types of groups (work organizations, student communities, racial/ethnic minority groups), we show that fair and distinctive treatment play fundamentally different roles – shaping individuals’ perceived belonging versus intragroup standing, respectively – and with downstream benefits for mental health (less anxiety, fewer depressive symptoms). Overall, this illustrates that promoting fair treatment in groups is important, but not sufficient. Experiencing distinctive treatment is also key. Each type of treatment provides unique social evaluative information that fosters a healthy sense of self. This research further indicates that distinctive treatment may be a vital yet overlooked element to promoting diversity and inclusion in groups, as it provides a path for recognizing and appreciating, and thus encouraging, a diversity of ideas, insights, knowledge and skills that individuals bring to the group.

Leaders exist in myriad types of groups. Yet in many of them – including in organizational, political, and educational domains – leadership roles are disproportionately occupied by individuals of certain social categories (e.g. men, white individuals). Speaking to this imbalance in representation, there is a wealth of theory and research indicating that gender and race are key to understanding: (a) who tends to get placed in leadership roles, and (b) what an individual’s experience will be like while in that role, or on the path to it. In part, this is because there are commonly held stereotypes that make certain individuals – often those of socially dominant racial and gender groups – seem better suited for leadership. By comparison, individuals of other genders and races are often perceived and evaluated as less suitable, and treated as such (e.g. deprived of opportunities to become leaders or develop leadership skills). These stereotypes can also elicit disparate internal states (e.g. stereotype threat, internalized negative self-perceptions) that affect individuals’ likelihood of pursuing or obtaining such roles (e.g. by affecting their motivation, performance). In this way, leadership dynamics are intimately connected to the study of gender and race.

Overall, these dynamics involve several psychological processes. This includes myriad forms of gender and racial bias – discrimination in evaluations, pay, hiring, and promotions, and in access to role models, mentorship, and support; backlash effects; queen bee effects (self-group distancing); glass cliff effects; motherhood penalties; fatherhood bonuses. It also involves multiple lines of theorizing – role congruity theory; lack of fit; masculine defaults and ambient belonging; modern sexism; aversive racism; social identity threat, and others.

Looking ahead, there are several critical directions for advancing research on gender, race, and leadership. This includes examining leadership processes from a more precise, intersectional lens – rather than studying the implications of one’s gender or race in isolation (e.g. by integrating work on intersectionality theory, gendered races, and intersectional invisibility). Future study of these processes will also need to consider other relevant social identities (e.g. reflecting class, religion, age, sexuality, ability and neurodiversity, nationality and immigration status), along with a more thorough consideration of gender – going beyond the study of (cisgender) men and women to consider how transgender and gender-nonconforming individuals are perceived and treated in leadership roles, or on the path to such roles. Additionally, and ultimately, it will be critical to develop effective strategies for addressing the underrepresentation of women, racial and ethnic minorities, and other social groups in leadership. In part this will mean carefully evaluating strategies now being employed (e.g. organizational diversity messages, quotas and affirmative action, mentorship programs) – including those that may be largely ineffective, if not causing harm (e.g. implicit bias training, campaigning for women to “lean in”). Addressing the lack of diversity in leadership will be a crucial step towards tackling broader issues of social inequity.

Relatively little is known about identity-related resilience factors associated with well-being among transgender and gender non-conforming (TGNC) people. Drawing upon theory on stigma-related stress and resilience and work examining group identification as a buffer against discrimination, the aim of the current study was to model perceived discrimination, transgender identification, and gender identity affirmation as predictors of well-being for TGNC people. We also tested whether the positive association between gender identity affirmation and well-being might be explained by the benefits affirmation has for individual self-concept clarity. Participants were 105 TGNC individuals (42% transgender male, 39% transgender female, 19% other gender non-conforming [e.g. non-binary]) recruited through online forums and support groups in the United Kingdom and North America who completed an online survey including self-report measures of key constructs. Results from structural equation models demonstrated that: (1) experiences of discrimination were associated with lower well-being overall, but having a stronger transgender identity moderated this association; (2) after adjustment for discrimination and transgender identification, experiences of gender identity affirmation were independently associated with greater well-being for TGNC people. Secondary analyses demonstrated that gender identity affirmation was linked to well-being through reinforcing a strong, internalized sense of clarity about individual self-concept. Results are discussed in terms of the implications for TGNC health and well-being, particularly with regards to the need for supportive, identity-affirming social environments.

In efforts to promote equality and combat potential gender bias, traditionally male-occupied professions are investing resources into hiring more women. Looking forward, if women do become well-represented in a profession, does this mean equality has been achieved? Are issues of bias resolved? Two studies including a randomized double-blind experiment demonstrate that biases can persist even when women become well-represented (evinced in veterinary medicine). Evidence included managers evaluating an employee randomly assigned a male (vs. female) name as more competent, and advising a $3,475.00 higher salary, equating to an 8% pay gap. Importantly, those who thought bias was not happening in their field were the key drivers of it – a ‘high risk’ group (including men and women) that, as shown, can be readily identified/assessed. Thus, as other professions make gains in women’s representation it will be vital to recognize that discrimination can persist – perpetuated by those who think it not happening.

Women’s concerns about work–life balance are cited as a key factor underlying their continued underrepresentation in particular domains and roles. This gendered pattern is often attributed to factors in the home, such as women’s disproportionate share of domestic work and childcare responsibilities. We offer an additional explanation that focuses on workplace identities. Across four studies, we demonstrate that perceptions of work–life balance are not only a matter of balancing time, but also a matter of balancing identity, and that the availability of attainable leaders plays a key role in determining these processes. More specifically, a survey study (Study 1, N = 1223) among participants working in a historically male‐dominated profession shows that gender differences in work–life balance perceptions are, in part, explained by women’s perceived lack of fit with leaders and, in turn, their perceptions of incompatibility between who they are at home and who they are at work. In Studies 2 (N = 207), 3a (N = 209), and 3b (N = 191), we demonstrate that gender differences in anticipated work–life balance can be ameliorated through exposure to attainable female leaders. These findings have implications for organizations that seek to recruit and retain women and demonstrate that issues of identity are crucial for facilitating work–life balance.

Two studies (N = 1,048) examined how Blacks’, Asians’, and Latinos’ perceived value within their own ethnic group (ethnic intragroup status) shapes mental health (depression, anxiety, psychological distress). The proposed intragroup status and health (ISAH) model predicts that feeling valued among ethnic ingroup members has benefits for health, but also indirect costs. Costs arise because individuals who feel highly valued in their ethnic group see their ethnicity as more central to their self-concept; with stronger identity-centrality, individuals more frequently view daily social interactions through the “lens” of their ethnicity and ultimately perceive/experience more discrimination. Discrimination, in turn, adversely shapes mental health. Results of structural equation modeling supported these predictions across all groups in both studies. Thus, feeling valued in one’s minority group may be a double-edged sword for mental health. Overall, the ISAH model reveals how intragroup processes, when considered from an intergroup perspective, advance our understanding of minority mental health.

AbstractTwo studies (longitudinal, N = 510; cross‐sectional; N = 249) explain how feeling valued in one's ethnic/sexual minority group has benefits for mental health but also certain costs through the way it shapes minorities' identity. Drawing from the intragroup status and health (ISAH) model, we posit that when individuals feel valued in their minority group it bolsters group identification; with greater identity‐centrality, individuals tend to view daily social interactions through the “lens” of their minority group and ultimately perceive more discrimination. Discrimination, in turn, negatively shapes health. Thus, feeling valued in one's minority group has benefits for health but also indirect costs, perhaps counterintuitively by strengthening minority group identity. Results of both studies supported these predictions. Study 2 also supported an adapted ISAH model for use in the context of concealable stigmatized identities (sexual minorities). Overall, the ISAH model explains why feeling valued and having strong social identities are not always beneficial, yielding certain costs for stigmatized individuals' health.

This study addressed the hypothesis that late life cognitive decline leads to loss of well-being. Participants are older persons from the Rush Memory and Aging Project. Beginning in 2001, they underwent annual clinical evaluations that included detailed cognitive performance testing and a 10-item self-report measure of purpose in life, an aspect of well-being. Initial analyses involved 1,049 individuals who were without dementia at baseline and followed a mean of 5.0 years. The intercepts and slopes of global cognition and purpose were positively correlated, and level of cognition at a given evaluation predicted level of purpose at the subsequent evaluation, consistent with the study hypothesis. Purpose also predicted subsequent cognition. These findings persisted in analyses that excluded mild cognitive impairment or controlled for time varying levels of depressive symptoms or disability. To see whether cognitive decline's correlation with purpose differed from its correlation with other aspects of well-being, we conducted additional analyses on a subgroup of 560 persons without dementia who completed a multidimensional measure of well-being once between 2008 and 2011. More rapid cognitive decline in the period preceding well-being assessment (M = 5.5 years, SD = 2.8) was associated with lower level of nearly all aspects of well-being (5 of 6 measures), but the extent of the association varied across well-being dimensions and was stronger for purpose than for self-acceptance and autonomy. The results support the hypothesis that cognitive aging leads to diminished well-being, particularly aspects such as purpose in life that involve behavioral regulation. © 2013 American Psychological Association.

Existing evidence suggests that psychosocial stress is associated with cognitive impairment in older adults. Perceived discrimination is a persistent stressor in African Americans that has been associated with several adverse mental and physical health outcomes. To our knowledge, the association of discrimination with cognition in older African Americans has not been examined. In a cohort of 407 older African Americans without dementia (mean age = 72.9; SD = 6.4), we found that a higher level of perceived discrimination was related to poorer cognitive test performance, particularly episodic memory (estimate =-'0.03; SE =.013; p

Objective: to identify the components of the neuroticism trait most responsible for its association with cognitive decline and dementia in old age. Design: Longitudinal clinical-pathologic cohort study. Setting: Chicago metropolitan area. Participants: a total of 785 older persons without dementia completed standard self-report measures of six components of neuroticism and then had annual clinical evaluations for a mean of 3.4 years and brain autopsy in the event of death. Measurements: Incidence of clinically diagnosed Alzheimer disease (AD), change in global and specific cognitive functions, and postmortem measures of plaques and tangles, cerebral infarction, and Lewy bodies. Results: During follow-up, 94 individuals developed AD. Higher levels of anxiety and vulnerability to stress were associated with increased risk of AD and more rapid decline in global cognition, with no effects for the other four trait components. In analyses of specific cognitive systems, neuroticism subscales were related to decline in episodic memory, working memory, and perceptual speed, but not in semantic memory or visuospatial ability. No component of neuroticism was related to the neuropathologic lesions most commonly associated with late-life dementia. Conclusions: Neuroticism's association with late-life dementia mainly reflects vulnerability to stress and anxiety and their correlation with decline in the abilityto process and retain new information. © 2011 American Association for Geriatric Psychiatry.