Research

Everyday social situations are often open to interpretation. Because we cannot know exactly what other people are thinking or why organizations make certain decisions, we rely on clues to make sense of what is happening around us. For example, if someone is passed over for a promotion, was it because they were less qualified or because they faced discrimination? If someone presents their identity differently in different situations, are they expressing who they truly are or trying to gain an advantage? When a university or company changes a policy, does it signal that everyone is welcome or that some groups are less valued? My research examines how people answer these kinds of questions and how those interpretations shape feelings of trust, belonging, and intergroup relations.

Interpreting Social Outcomes

How do people decide whether an outcome reflects discrimination or merit? My research examines how people answer this question when the reasons behind social outcomes are ambiguous. Rather than focusing only on the identities of perpetrators and targets, I show that people compare everyone involved—including those who benefit from a decision—to infer whether discrimination occurred. To explain this process, I developed the Comparative Status Hypothesis, which proposes that discrimination judgments emerge from comparisons among all actors in an event, rather than from the target's identity alone (Quinn-Jensen, invited submission, Social & Personality Psychology Compass). Across studies involving race, gender, sexual orientation, and Multiracial identities, I find that changing only the identity of the successful competitor can substantially alter whether observers perceive discrimination, even when the outcome itself is identical (Quinn-Jensen et al., 2025, Personality and Social Psychology Bulletin; Quinn-Jensen et al., 2024, Group Processes & Intergroup Relations; Quinn-Jensen, Shelton, & Sinclair, in preparation). Together, this work provides a broader framework for understanding how people interpret fairness and inequality in everyday life.

Interpreting Identity Expression

How do people judge whether identity expression is authentic? My research examines how people evaluate individuals who express different aspects of their identities across social contexts, such as Multiracial or bisexual people. I argue that these judgments depend not only on people's behavior but also on observers' beliefs about identity—specifically, whether identity is viewed as fixed or as naturally changing across situations. Across studies with adults and children, I find that although people recognize Multiracial individuals as legitimately belonging to multiple racial groups (Quinn-Jensen & Liberman, 2025, Social Development), they often evaluate contextual identity expression less positively than consistent identity expression (Quinn-Jensen, Nelson, Danda, et al., in preparation; Quinn-Jensen, McDonald, & Burke, under revision). These evaluations become more favorable when observers view identity as inherently flexible, and experimentally promoting more flexible beliefs about Multiracial identity increases acceptance of contextual identity expression (Quinn-Jensen, Nelson, Danda, et al., in preparation). Extending this work, I find that both heterosexual and gay/lesbian individuals who conceptualize bisexuality as more flexible also hold more positive attitudes toward bisexual people overall (Quinn-Jensen & Albuja, in preparation). Together, this research demonstrates that beliefs about the nature of identity shape judgments of authenticity, trust, and social acceptance.

Interpreting Institutional Signals

How do institutions shape the way people interpret social interactions? My research examines how organizational norms and public actions serve as social signals that influence trust, belonging, and expectations about how people will be treated. Across multiple studies, I found that both majority- and minority-group members viewed identical positive feedback from a White evaluator to a minority group member as less authentic in environments with strong anti-bias norms than in environments without them, which in turn reduced perceptions of the recipient's competence (Quinn-Jensen, Salem, & Major, invited revision, Journal of Personality and Social Psychology). Longitudinally, I found that racial and ethnic minority students who became increasingly suspicious of positive interactions with White peers later reported greater discrimination and poorer psychological and physical well-being over three years (Quinn-Jensen et al., in press, Social Psychological and Personality Science). Building on this work, I examine how people interpret institutional actions themselves. Across a series of experiments, I find that universities' responses to pressures surrounding Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives shape anticipated belonging and willingness to affiliate by signaling institutional values and who is likely to benefit from organizational decisions (Quinn-Jensen, Sinclair, & Shelton, in preparation). Together, this research demonstrates that institutions do more than establish policies—they shape how people interpret ambiguous social situations and anticipate future interactions.

Page updated

Google Sites

Report abuse