SOCIAL & EVOLUTIONARY PSYCHOLOGY LAB

Every woman has at least two stories: One about how she could not have survived without the support of a female friend; one about how a female friend broke her heart. We explore the often-overlooked complexities underlying women's social relationships with one another.

• Like men, women actively compete. We identify ways that women might avoid the often high costs of other women's aggression (e.g., via perceptual biases, strategic behavior)--and the impact this might have on women's psychology and physiology.
• Related, we test whether indirect aggression actually does what theory says it does--protects aggressors from backlash (relative to overt aggression).
• How do women meet the challenge of discerning whether other women are likely friends or foes?
• Might current conceptualizations of power and status assume male-biased defaults, thereby leading us to overlook sources power and status typically held by women?
• Might some female-female aggression be "encrypted"--decipherable only be female aggressors and victims--and thereby more difficult for victims to punish?

Our friends make us happy, keep us healthy, and can even promote our reproductive fitness. But friendships remain understudied in social psychology. We explore these important bonds.

• Does "friendship jealousy" protect our friendships, and motivate us to guard our friends? What are the sex similarities and differences in friendship jealousy? How is it enacted across cultures?
• Can a little jealousy actually be a "good" thing for friendships?
• Does social venting about our friends have hidden friendship benefits?
• How many friends do women and men have? 
• How does the mind integrate our myriad friend preferences to make actual friend choices? And might we sometimes want surprising traits in our friends (e.g., meanness)?
• What do we want in friends, and do we ever want "mean" friends? 
• Our work suggests that striving for status and finding friends can make us feel self-actualized.

We use a functional approach to stigma to revolutionize our understanding of classic research in social psychology.

• How do people's body shapes affect fat stigma directed toward them, and what distinct social  affordances might different bodily shape cue?
• (Why) Do people stereotype women (but not men) who have casual sex as having low self-worth?
• What (really) drives stigma toward promiscuous women?
• What are people's prejudices toward artwork after learning artists are accused of, e.g., sexual assault, murder?
• Do specific threats transfer in stigma-by-association?
• How might our imperfect social perceptions of threats and opportunities translate into stereotypes and prejudice?
• How does the "OKness" of prejudices vary across relationships types? 

Income inequality is a strong predictor of violence. Does increasing income inequality also change the ways that women compete? How does pathogen prevalence affect the job market?

• Do social perceivers have "accurate" expectations about the behavior of people in different ecological circumstances (e.g.., resource-scarce vs. resource-rich environments, environments with harsher vs. mild climates, environments characterized by high vs. low pathogens)?
• Our work suggests that different ecological factors shape different types of violence.
• How does relational mobility affect women's and men's friendship processes?
• Our work on music suggests that greater information saturation in an environment can lead us to prefer simpler information.
• Our goal of caring for kin is highly important to people across cultures--even as many researchers sometimes overlook this motivation. 

Religious people are highly trusted--and even other atheists often distrust atheists. Some religious people are also likely to hold negative perceptions of gays, women's reproductive rights, recreational drugs. Why?

• Our work suggests that atheists are distrusted because they are seen as sexually uncommitted, building a body of work suggesting that sexual strategies lead us to religions (and not vice versa).
• Do people ever possess positive stereotypes about atheists?
• Which individual-level traits drive anti-atheist prejudice?
• Can displaying cues of religiosity mitigate (some) stigmatization?

Our minds are sensitive to how other people see us, and this sensitivity can influence how we view other people, whom we condemn, how we navigate relationships, and whether and with whom we share information.

• Shockingly, we don't yet know whether indirect aggression "works" the way it's theorized to. We assess the complicated possible costs to actors of indirect (versus direct) aggression. 
• How does the mind deal with contradictory information about others? (E.g., When a friend tells us someone else's secret, that friend is breaking someone else's trust but favoring us.)
• Does liking the same person always make us feel closer to one another? Can it backfire?
• We might enjoy reputational boosts when we condemn other people--but how do people view us when we try to understand both sides of controversies?
• Artifacts (e.g., songs, films, paintings) are unchanging, but the reputations of the people that made them are not. How does the mind evaluate art made by transgressors?
• How might we harm the reputations of others while avoiding revenge and retaliation for doing so?