Research

My research investigates the complexity of diversity at both the individual and organizational/societal levels. For example, when former Vice President Kamala Harris was running for office, her opponent characterized her as being solely Indian despite having both Black and Indian ancestry. This characterization demonstrates that many people struggle with the complexities of understanding identities that don’t fit neatly into one box. Social psychologists have also historically treated social identities as static, examining one single identity at a time. Yet, everyone holds multiple, intersecting social identities, and an increasing number of people identify in ways that blur conventional, singular identification. For example, some people belong to intermediate identity groups—those perceived to fall between more commonly acknowledged groups on the same dimension of social identity (e.g., Biracial, bisexual people).
My research explores the richness and ambiguity of intermediate and multiple identities in intergroup relations as a counterpoint to the single-category emphasis that has dominated previous research. My research uses experimental, qualitative, longitudinal, and developmental methods to inform and develop novel theoretical models that account for the complex role of social identities in intergroup relations. Specifically, my research examines how intersecting and intermediate identities impact identity-related judgements, as well as the role of diversity norms and policies on intergroup relations.

Diversity at the Individual Level

At the individual level, I examine how complex identities are incorporated into identity-based judgments. In one line of research, I investigate how people evaluate identity expression when multiple identity signals are available. Although adults and children view Biracial individuals as legitimately belonging to multiple racial groups (Quinn-Jensen & Liberman, 2025), they respond negatively to contextual self-presentation—shifting how one presents their identity across situations. This aversion emerges across various identity domains (e.g., race, gender, academic identity), target characteristics (e.g., phenotype), and is not explained by perceived strategic benefit (Quinn-Jensen & Albuja, in prep; Quinn-Jensen, MacDonald, & Burke, under revision; Quinn-Jensen, Major, & Liberman, in prep). Importantly, these reactions are attenuated when individuals conceptualize identity as flexible; both endorsement and experimental priming of Biracial identity as “protean” (context-dependent) reduce negative evaluations (Quinn-Jensen, Major, & Liberman, in prep).

In a second line of research, I examine how complex identities shape judgments of discrimination. Whereas prior work has focused on the identities of perpetrators and targets, I show that perceivers also rely on the identity of a competitor—the person who benefits—to interpret ambiguous outcomes. The competitor’s identity shifts which of the target’s identity signals become salient, altering perceived status and the likelihood that discrimination is inferred. This was replicated across multiple identity domains (sexual orientation, race). Together, this work demonstrates that identity-based judgments depend not only on who people are, but on how multiple identity signals are integrated within a broader social context (Quinn-Jensen, Major, Burke, & Liberman, 2024; Quinn-Jensen, Tran, Burke, Major, & Liberman, 2025; Quinn-Jensen, Sinclair, & Shelton, in prep).

Diversity at the Societal & Organizational Level

At the societal and organizational level, I examine how diversity norms and policies shape intergroup relations. Such norms and policies are, at their core, an effort to foster equity and harmonious interactions among individuals from different backgrounds. However, these norms and policies are generally guided by legal, practical, and ideological considerations, without an informed understanding of how they impact people’s daily lives and social relations within affected communities.
In one line of work, I show that the presence of anti-bias norms creates ambiguity about whether positive feedback in cross-race interactions is genuine or given for the evaluator to appear unbiased. Specifically, minority and majority racial group members believed that positive feedback given to a minority group member from a majority group member was less authentic when it was given in a community with strong anti-bias norms (vs. when it was given in a community that tolerates bias or one with no anti-bias norms; Quinn-Jensen, Salem, & Major, under revision). In another study, I use a longitudinal design to show that when racial and ethnic minority college students are faced with ambiguity about whether to trust a White person’s positive behavior, it can lead to more reported experiences of discrimination, as well as negative mental and physical health consequences (Quinn-Jensen, Dover, Espino-Perez, Kuntsman, & Major, in prep). Therefore, while anti-bias norms reduce overt forms of prejudice, they also have unintended consequences for racial minorities.
In a second line of research, I explore responses to governmental pressures seeking to dismantle DEI in organizations and the downstream consequences of these responses. I find that Black and White Americans overwhelmingly prefer when organizations resist these pressures (compared to revising or removing DEI programs), and this preference is driven by greater perceived belonging (Quinn-Jensen, Sinclair, & Shelton, in prep).

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse