Support for diversity and the racial status quo in lay and legal samples.

Jordan G Starck, N Derek Brown, Kyneshawau Hurd, Victoria Plaut, Helen Tian, Drew Jacoby-Senghor

Abstract read

In one paragraph

Article in Communications psychology, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it

0cells of the map it votes in

0citing papers in PubMed

–field-weighted citation impact

1 · What the graph read from it

What it found

Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.

The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.

2 · The registry

The trial behind it

Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.

Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

6 authors.

Jordan G StarckDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA. jostarck@stanford.edu.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-5503-1283

N Derek BrownManagement Division, Columbia Business School, New York, NY, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2492-9768

Kyneshawau HurdAmerican Bar Foundation, Chicago, IL, USA.

Victoria PlautSchool of Law, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0002-2764-2594

Helen TianDepartment of Psychology, Stanford University, Stanford, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0009-0000-0619-2806

Drew Jacoby-SenghorHaas School of Business, University of California-Berkeley, Berkeley, CA, USA.ORCID http://orcid.org/0000-0001-9007-3876

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

While attacks on diversity in higher education have clear ramifications for preserving the racial status quo in the U.S., the impact of embracing diversity is less clear. People may value diversity for some combination of the instrumental benefits diversity provides or their moral commitments to certain values. While decades of court precedent have contributed to the predominance of instrumental over moral rationales, little is known about the psychological factors underlying this differential popularity. Across two observational studies (N

Identifiers

PMID40251322

DOI10.1038/s44271-025-00242-5

PMCPMC12008222

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata

LicenceCC BY-NC-ND

Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.